Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Ferry Companies (Subsidies)

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many ferry companies in Scotland receive subsidies from public funds.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): The Scottish Office provides subsidies to two ferry companies in Scotland: Caledonian MacBrayne Limited and P and O Ferries Limited. In addition, some local authorities subsidise ferry operations.

Mr. Field: Does that answer not show not only the Government's strong commitment to the Highlands and Islands, but the generosity of United Kingdom taxpayers, some of whom live on the Isle of Wight and travel to and from the mainland in unsubsidised ferries, paying the full fare out of their own pockets?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should mention that this year the provision is for a £6·5 million subsidy to CalMac, to cover its deficit in providing approved services, and for a £4·1 million subsidy to P and 0 Ferries, to reduce fares to the Orkney and Shetland islands. There are about 100,000 persons living on about 75 Scottish islands, many of which have to be reached by long, difficult and stormy journeys. For example, the journey to Lerwick takes 14 hours. We have a commitment to maintaining that subsidy.

Mr. MacDonald: Will the Minister confirm that Caledonian MacBrayne receives large amounts in assistance from the European Commission towards the construction costs of new ferries and piers, and that such assistance would not be available if it were under private ownership?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is certainly the case that the ERDF subsidy is received by Caledonian MacBrayne at present, and it is not at all clear whether it would continue under a different system. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering future arrangements for CalMac following his decision to privatise the Scottish Bus Group. He has commissioned the Scottish economic consultants Pieda to advise him in that respect. Whatever structure is adopted, it will guarantee the best quality of service, which the islanders rightly enjoy.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We very much welcome my hon. Friend's statement that the situation of ferries serving the Western Isles and the northern isles of Scotland is quite different from that of ferries serving other areas of the United Kingdom, and his commitment to them. Will he go a little further and say that he will ensure that in any privatisation proposals the special position held by those services, and the way in which they are viewed by the communities they help, will be fully taken into account?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes. Whatever proposals may eventually be put forward will ensure the best arrangements possible. In our election manifesto we pledged to continue the substantially increased financial support and upgrading of ferries and terminals that are so vital to the islands. When I met the STUC and the joint shipping services advisory committee, I acknowledged that those services are a lifeline to the islands.

Court of Session (Appeals)

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of cases on appeal dealt with by the Inner House of the Court of Session in the last five years for which information is available.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The information is as follows:

Number


1983
164


1984
159


1985
137


1986
130


1987
104

Mr. Campbell: Does the Minister accept that, due to the increase in the number of cases in the High Court of Justiciary, Scottish judges are less able to spend time dealing with civil business? Is this not the time for a radical review of the Court of Session procedures, to ensure that civil business is more speedily conducted? In the end, delay is against the interests of justice.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I entirely agree with the hon. and learned Member's comment that delay is contrary to the interests of justice. I confirm that during 1987–88 the number of bench days devoted to criminal business exceeded for the first time those devoted to civil business in the supreme courts. Delays are being reduced, and have fallen from about 10 to eight months, which is an improvement. The 1986 report of the review body on the use of judicial time made recommendations, many of which have been implemented. From April 1987, parties must now appear and give notice that the case will proceed and an up-to-date estimate of how long it will take. That permits more effective planning of court time.

Mr. Foulkes: When a judge instructs a regional council to keep a school open, who is responsible for making the extra money available to keep the school open without the regional council incurring a penalty?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that that cannot possibly cause further delays in court time.

Greater Glasgow Health Board

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make resources available to Greater Glasgow health board enabling the board to provide geriatric hospital services for all of Cambuslang and Rutherglen within its geographic catchment area; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Forsyth): The Greater Glasgow health board is conducting a major strategic review of its services for the elderly. This will cover the whole of its area, including Cambuslang and Rutherglen. The question of resources does not arise until the review is complete and building plans have been made in the light of its outcome.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister agree that the present position causes great difficulties for people from Cambuslang and Rutherglen travelling to visit relatives? Does he further agree that if the review shows that the needs can be met and that further finance is required, that finance will be available?

Mr. Forsyth: I acknowledge that there has been a long-standing deficiency in geriatric services in the south-east of Glasgow. As I have said, the board is developing its strategies for the services, and we shall certainly take account of the representations that the hon. Gentleman has made about the extent to which those services could be made a priority.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Given the importance of ensuring adequate services for all the elderly in Scotland, can the Minister tell us whether he is in a position to give a Government response to the Griffiths report and how it will apply to Scotland?

Mr. Forsyth: I can give an answer, and that answer is no. As I have said, the report is important and we are giving it careful consideration.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware of the threat to the Crossroads attendance scheme, which services many geriatric people in Scotland? The abolition of that scheme could throw at least 20 people instantly into residential care, which would cost nearly £3 million a year. Will the Minister give us an assurance that money will be available to ensure that geriatric patients in Inverclyde can at least be looked after?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree that the Crossroads scheme provides a valuable support service for the elderly. Money is available through the MSC, where schemes can be adapted to include an element of training. I understand that there have been problems with some schemes in meeting those criteria. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that I am looking into the matter.

Rating Reform

Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assumptions on the likely evasion rate for the poll tax local authorities will be allowed to make when setting a budget.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Ian Lang): It will be for local authorities in setting their budgets to take into account, among other things, the estimated levels of

collection of personal community charge. But it seems that the hon. Gentleman's "Stop it" campaign has not stopped it.

Mr. Wilson: I am a relative novice in these matters, but that must be the crassest reply delivered by a Scottish Office Minister since I came here. The Minister is proposing to replace a scheme that results in less than 1 per cent. non-collection with a new system which, on the assessment of every independent analysis, is likely to result in at least 10 to 15 per cent. non-collection. Is no guidance to be given to local authorities on what they can do to take account of that? If not, may we have an assurance that local authorities will not be hectored by the Minister if they take reasonable account of that reality?

Mr. Lang: There is no question of hectoring local authorities. The hon. Gentleman's figures are speculative. The basis of the estimates that we have given so far—I emphasise that they are not forecasts—is the product of rate poundages and local authorities' total domestic rateable value divided by the Registrar General's estimates of the number of adults in each local authority area. On that basis, we estimate that a 7 per cent. cushion is built into the figures, because the actual rate income is less than the total that we have been using.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policies of the Labour party and the Scottish National party on the community charge are as confused as their policies on defence? Does he further agree that the very high registration figures, running up to 95 per cent. and more, show that the Scottish people will pay their community charge as laid down in law?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. According to the published figures, the registration process seems to be going well and the attempts of Opposition parties to frustrate the future collection of resources for local authorities seem not to have succeeded. I agree about the confusion of the Labour party's policies. So far as I am aware, it has not yet repudiated the policy set out by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), which is to keep domestic rates, to add volatility by basing them on capital values and to have a local income tax. I suppose that that is something for something—or something.

Mr. Salmond: Does the Minister consider that overseas service men who have been exempted from poll tax should be included in the evasion rate? How does he explain to people in Scotland that overseas military personnel will be exempt from the poll tax, while tourists coming to Scotland will have to pay the standard charge? Is the Minister saying that the military contributes more than the tourist industry to the Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: The arrangements that we are contemplating for overseas service men in Scotland are broadly comparable to the existing system under rates, whereby they make a contribution to the resources of local authorities.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the bill for Scottish community charge evasion will fall on Scotland and not on the rest of the United Kingdom, and that if the Scottish Labour party succeeds in its campaign to persuade the Scots to fiddle, they will be fiddling their fellow Scotsmen and not the rest of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The only effects of the success of the irresponsible campaign advocated by Opposition Members would be a poorer quality of local services, and the loss of jobs in local authorities.

Mr. Douglas: Notwithstanding the reasons for evasion, will the Minister consider the issue of exemptions? What progress has he made in giving guidance to local authorities about exemption for the severely mentally handicapped? In addition, what discussions have taken place with the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to compensate service men who will now have to pay poll tax, but previously were compensated under the rates system?

Mr. Lang: The arrangements that we are proposing for service men are broadly comparable with those under the present rating system whereby if they have a sole or main residence they will be liable to community charge in place of domestic rates, and if they are living in barracks they will make a contribution through a general fund, handled by the Ministry of Defence, which broadly replaces the present system.
In regard to the severely mentally handicapped, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Local Government Finance Bill is at present before another place and an amendment in that respect will be debated shortly.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Will my hon. Friend point out to Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas), who told a selection conference that he would not advise his constituents to pay the community charge, that in a democracy all people have to obey the law, and that we disagree with many laws passed by the Labour Government but we obey them?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. The level of the community charge will be set by local authorities. The more people who are registered in each local authority area, the lower the charge will have to be.

Mr. Maxton: Will the Minister first take the opportunity to repudiate what the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) said about Opposition Members asking anyone to fiddle? Secondly, does he accept the CIPFA report, requested by him and the Secretary of State, that there would be 15 per cent. evasion or non-payment of the poll tax? If he accepts that, will he give a guarantee today that next April the Secretary of State will not use his powers to reduce local authority poll taxes if they are set on the basis of that 15 per cent. evasion rate?

Mr. Lang: I do not accept the figure that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. It is purely speculative. As for the Opposition policy on non-payment, I accept that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) in an article in the Glasgow Herald, said
All responsible politicians have now rejected the case for a mass campaign of non-payment".
Unfortunately, he seems unable to carry all his hon. Friends with him.

Mr. Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Electricity Industry

Mr. Buchan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the future of the electricity industry in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: The Government remain firmly committed to their policy of privatising the electricity supply industry in Scotland within the lifetime of this Parliament. The development of our proposals in detail is proceeding well, and draft legislation will be brought before Parliament in due course.

Mr. Buchan: As the Government's own White Paper stresses that a monopoly will continue and that the boards have been efficient, is there any case for proceeding with privatisation other than political dogma and the pursuit of profit by the Government's friends? Above all, is it not incredibly dangerous and reckless, still in the decade of Chernobyl, to put our nuclear power industry in the hands of private profit-makers? It is one of the most dangerous and foolish things that this dangerous and foolish Government have ever done.

Mr. Lang: There is considerable advantage to he gained from the development of two free-standing companies in Scotland able to offer competitive sourcing of electricity to Scottish consumers. The important point about nuclear power is the way in which it is regulated, and we are not contemplating any change in the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, which regulates these matters.

Mr. Oppenheim: Will my hon. Friend remind Opposition Members that Scotland has electricity consumers as well as electricity producers, and that those consumers employ people and have interests as well?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. If we pursued the electricity policy advanced by the Opposition during the last general election campaign, and abandoned nuclear power, electricity prices in Scotland would have to rise by 30 per cent.

Mr. Millan: It is now more than three months since the White Paper was published, and we have still not had answers to the basic questions that it raised. Can the Minister at least give us an assurance that, whatever else happens, the industry will not be allowed to fall into foreign hands? Nobody believes that it will stay under Scottish control, but can he at least give us that minimal assurance?

Mr. Lang: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about this matter. It is an important issue and we are considering it carefully. There will be nothing wrong with a measure of foreign investment in the industry when it is in private hands, but I accept the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety about control or ownership being in foreign hands. That is something that we shall consider closely, and we shall announce our decision at the appropriate time.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that privatisation of the electricity supply industry will give us an opportunity to export electricity to England on a substantial scale? Does he also agree that it gives the Scots an opportunity to invest in the new electricity companies? More important, is my hon. Friend aware that the chairman and senior executives of the British Airports


Authority said on the Terrace last night that privatisation is the best thing that has ever happened to them because of the effect it has had on their management, particularly because it electrifies the management as nothing else does?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. I met representatives of the BAA last night and they confirmed to me the great success that has resulted from privatisation. My hon. Friend mentioned the export of electricity to England. That is an area in which the Scottish electricity industry and, therefore, the Scottish consumer, can benefit considerably, provided that electricity can be generated competitively.

Mr. Dewar: How can the Minister describe the privatised companies as free standing if they are to be linked in a joint operating company for nuclear power? Will he give an assurance that, whatever else happens, there will be separate Scottish legislation when the matter comes to the House? That is surely in the interests of good parliamentary scrutiny and democratic control over what the Government are doing. Perhaps I may echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). We have asked whether there will be effective plans to limit foreign ownership and more, important, to retain control in Scotland. Continued dodging and ducking on that issue suggests that the Government are prepared to watch an essential public utility being sold to anyone, anywhere, at any price.

Mr. Lang: We are not ducking or dodging anything. There is an appropriate time to answer these matters. Legislation has not yet been prepared or presented to the House. When it has been, that will be the appropriate time to answer these questions. There is nothing anomalous about two independent free-standing companies sharing ownership of a subsidiary. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the Opposition's desire for separate legislation. That will be decided at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman is as aware as I am that there are many matters that affect the industry both north and south of the border.

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet reached any conclusions as to what strategy he intends to adopt in order to ensure that control of privatised Scottish electricity boards remains in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The Government will seek to encourage as many Scots as possible to invest in the Scottish electricity industry. We are considering whether a special share or other form of protection is appropriate and our conclusions will be announced in due course.

Mr. McKelvey: When the Secretary of State's surrogate perpetrates the plunder of one of Scotland's assets, will he bear in mind the increasing poverty in Scotland? When he clinches the sale of the century, will he at least underpin the position of those in poverty by seeking to guarantee their right to fuel and their right not to be cut off? We do not want to see the same thing happen as occurred after privatisation of the gas industry, where the number of cut-offs leapt by a huge percentage in England and to a certain extent in Scotland. We want cut-offs to be disallowed.

Mr. Lang: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can speak about increasing poverty in Scotland when personal

disposable incomes in 1986 were 16 per cent. higher than they were 10 years ago. There is no reason why we should depart from the present policy on cut-offs.

Mr. Steel: If control does not remain in Scotland, how will the Minister explain to the House and his constituents that the common tariff principle, which protects consumers in rural areas in the north of Scotland, will not be applied to rural areas in the south of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's question that he welcomes the prospect of control and ownership of the companies returning to Scotland, because, at present, the industries are owned by the Treasury.

Mr. Steel: Answer the question.

Mr. Lang: On the question of common tariffs, the only requirement is for the north board to provide a common tariff, and it will be able to do so as largely a result of the availability of hydro power. There is no requirement at present for the south board to provide a common tariff and we see no need for that.

Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend resist the pathetic chip-on-the-shoulder paranoia of Opposition Members? Will he contrast the apparent wish of Opposition Members to restrict ownership of a utility to those within a particular geographic area with their welcome for the jobs generated by external investment in Scotland over many years? Can my hon. Friend tell me how many jobs in Scotland depend on investment by what Opposition Members call foreigners? What confidence does he have that restricting ownership to Scots would do any good for the Scottish economy?

Mr. Lang: Since Locate in Scotland was established in 1981 about 50,000 jobs have been created or safeguarded in Scotland as a result of inward investment. We share my hon. Friend's view that the electricity industry in Scotland is a great potential asset. We believe that by privatising it we will enable Scotland to enjoy the maximum benefit from it.

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of the recent pay award to nurses in each health board area.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have already announced that an additional £92 million is to be made available in Scotland to finance the full additional cost of the review body awards. The distribution of that amount among the various health service bodies is currently being calculated. Health boards will be informed of their additional allocations shortly.

Mr. Ross: The Minister will know that he intends funding only the sum above the 4·5 per cent. that he believes to be the rate of inflation. The Grampian health board will receive only 4 per cent. for inflation, which leaves a shortfall of at least £500,000. What will the Minister do about that shortfall?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman chose the worst possible example to make his point. Grampian health board will have the biggest increase of any health board in Scotland. If he wished to seize on a board to make his


point, he would have done better to choose his own health board of Tayside, which will not benefit from the 1 per cent. distribution of resources under the SHARE formula. The overall cash increase for health boards in Scotland is 5·8 per cent., which is well ahead of inflation. We have chosen to allocate that in three parts: first, the flat rate 4 per cent. allocation to all health boards, then a further 1 per cent. distributed differentially according to the SHARE formula and then an additional 0·8 per cent, to meet specific priority areas such as breast cancer, AIDS and the waiting list initiative, from which Tayside, along with other boards that are not benefiting from growth on the SHARE formula, will benefit.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my hon. Friend agree that under the last Labour Government nurses' pay fell substantially in real terms? Does he also agree that the fact that thousands of new nurses have come into the Health Service since 1979 in Scotland shows that they believe that the Conservative party accepts patient care as the first priority? Does he further agree that they welcome warmly the new structure for nurses' pay?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is quite right. Under the Labour Government nurses' pay fell by more than 20 per cent. in real terms, whereas under this Government it has increased by 44 per cent. in real terms. For those who dismiss such figures as mere statistics, that means that a sister's income will have increased by as much as £5,000 in real terms as a result of this Government being in power.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister confirm, or correct, the impression that in granting extra funds to the Health Service to fund nurses' pay the Government omitted from their calculations those nurses who work in hospice care?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I cannot confirm that. If the hon. Gentleman is thinking of hospitals in the private or independent sector, which are run as voluntary hospitals, as many hospices are, they would not be affected by our commitment as they are not funded by the Government.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Is not one of the greatest advantages of this nursing settlement that it allows us to pay the proper rate for the job, which is needed by qualified nurses if we are to uphold the NHS?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend——

Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister know what his hon. Friend said?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) asks me what my hon. Friend said. The hon. Gentleman should have listened to what he said. My hon. Friend was making a point which, as a Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Gentleman should welcome, namely, that, as a result of the pay review body recommendations, nurses who are involved in clinical duties will be rewarded. For the first time we are providing nurses with a career structure that does not take them into administration if they wish to remain at the patient's bedside.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister should not get so angry so easily. As he knows, I have written to every health board in Scotland on this matter and, as the Minister will also know, because they are now in the habit of making private correspondence available to him, they have replied saying

that they do not know how much the nurses' pay award will cost, because of the regrading. If, as a result of the regrading, the award costs more than £92 million. will the Minister make the extra funds available?

Mr. Forsyth: On the point about private correspondence, if the hon. Gentleman has looked at the letter that was sent to him by Grampian health board he will see that it was copied to other Members of Parliament representing that area. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) along with others, wrote to me about that.. The hon. Gentleman should check his facts before he makes such allegations.
On the hon. Gentleman's questions about the extra costs of the awards, the overall provision of expenditure for the hospital and community health service took into account——

Dr. Moonie: Yes or no?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says, "Yes or no?", but the position is that the costs of the review body recommendations were calculated on the basis of the information that was supplied by the boards themselves.

Regional Industrial Policy

Mr. McLeish: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the implementation of regional industrial policy since the abolition of regional development grants on 31 March.

Mr. Lang: My right hon. and learned Friend considers that regional policy will be more cost-effective following changes which included the ending of the regional development grant scheme. Planned spending on regional assistance is being maintained but, through selective schemes, support will be directed to where it is needed.

Mr. McLeish: Is the Minister of State aware that, because of the rush to beat the 31 March deadline for RDG, there is now a considerable backlog of applications and that that could take between one and two years to work through? Is he further aware that, as a consequence of that, business men in Scotland are not getting grants through as quickly as they should, with the result that there is now some doubt about the total budget available for regional selective assistance and regional development grants? Will the Minister look into those matters and report back to the House about the gravity of that situation, which has been caused by the incompetent decision to phase out regional development grants far too quickly?

Mr. Lang: I believe that that decision was correct. It is certainly the case that the number of RDG applications increased before the deadline, as one would expect. The hon. Gentleman underrates the capacity of my Department to handle those applications. My officials are giving them as much close and effective attention as they can. The hon. Gentleman will be aware from the public expenditure White Paper that net provision for industrial support over the three years covered in the White Paper remains largely unchanged.

Mr. Wallace: Will the Minister take this opportunity to clarify the position of the Highlands and Islands with regard to the European regional development fund? Several weeks ago the Foreign Secretary said that a deal


had been clinched, although I suspect that that has subsequently been clouded by word from Europe and that that is not the case. Will he clarify the position?

Mr. Lang: As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations are continuing. I am under the clear impression that agreement has been reached that the Highlands and Islands will be covered under objective 5 of the European regional development fund, which relates to rural areas.

Mr. Fallon: Is not the biggest single threat to overseas investment in Scotland the regional policy of Mr. Ron Todd, who puts the lads at Dagenham before jobs in Dundee? Would not the Labour party be a little more credible if there was any evidence that it made these points to Mr. Todd?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The contrast in the successful generation of employment during the period of this Government with that of the previous Government is a dramatic illustration of the Labour party's inability to control its trade union friends.

Mr. Canavan: In view of all the hard work by Central regional council in preparing an updated submission in support of enhanced development status for the Falkirk travel-to-work area, where more than 8,000 people remain out of work, why did the Minister refuse a reasonable recent request for a meeting with council representatives to discuss this important matter? Is it not treating my constituents with absolute contempt for this Minister to refuse even to meet local councillors, who received a better mandate to represent their people than did the Minister, whose Government were rejected by more than three quarters of the people of Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I often meet representatives from many different local authorities. I am sure that if an appropriate issue can be resolved only at a meeting, that, too, can be arranged. The hon. Gentleman will welcome, as I do, the fact that unemployment in Falkirk has fallen by 1,900 in the past year.

Higher Education

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the provision of higher education in Scotland.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The number of students in higher education in Scotland has risen steadily since 1979 and is higher now than ever before. Participation rates are above those in Great Britain as a whole. I am confident that our universities and colleges will be able to meet the increasing demands from employers for highly qualified manpower, while still maintaining standards.

Mr. Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that these statistics demonstrate how well Scotland is doing through the Union under this Government? Does he agree also that in future it is much more important to increase the number of places in higher education than to maintain a system of student support that is the most generous in the free world?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on these matters as a graduate of St. Andrews university and as a former lecturer at two of our universities in Scotland. He is right to point out the

importance of the number of students in higher education, both in universities and elsewhere. Contrary to popular belief, the total funding of our universities has increased during the period that this Government have been in power, partly through their efforts at obtaining funding from elsewhere.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the previous answer is wholly unacceptable, in that since 1986 the Government have cut grants to the eight Scottish universities by more than £12 million? [Interruption.] This year Edinburgh university faces a deficit of £3 million, Aberdeen university faces a deficit of £1 million, and Glasgow university faces a deficit of £500,000, and the hooligan interjections of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) will not change that. In short, the future of many of our brightest Scots is being blighted by this Government through their cuts in education and in funding to universities.

Mr. Forsyth: If the answer is unacceptable to the hon. Gentleman, it is because it is the truth. I accept that a party that has no policies must rely on claim and counterclaim. The hon. Gentleman has a constituency interest in Edinburgh, which, for research funding, is one of the top four universities in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Griffiths: No thanks to the Minister.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but last year it received £18 million in research grants and contracts, including the largest grant ever awarded by the Natural Environmental Research Council. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the Fraser of Allander Institute report—an institute that is hardly a friend of the Government—which showed clearly that, in real terms, the income of Scottish universities has increased substantially.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that the emotional exaggeration of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) does nothing to carry forward the cause of university education in Scotland? Does he further agree that although universities in Scotland have been successful in recent years in obtaining funding from sources other than the Government, it would be right to bring to bear on our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the fact that there is a limit to that funding? Are not teaching and fundamental research the primary responsibility of Government?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree that the UGC's allocation system applies the same criteria to all universities in Great Britain, which the majority of the Scottish universities wish to continue. It is true that Aberdeen's funding from the UGC has declined by £7·5 million, but it is also true that its total income has increased by £190,000 because of its efforts to find additional money. If the Scottish universities are obtaining more funds and becoming less dependent on the Government, surely that is a far healthier position for them to be in and one in which academic freedom can flourish.

Mr. Norman Hogg: As the Minister has read the Fraser of Allander report, does he agree with its finding that the impact of the cuts in Scottish universities will amount to a cut of £33 million in the Scottish economy by 1990? What is the merit in making those cuts in the academic life of our


universities? Who will benefit from cuts that damage academic life, the local economies where universities are based and the economy of Scotland? Who will be the gainers from that policy?

Mr. Forsyth: I am astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman saying that. If he accepts the Fraser of Allander report's conclusion that the overall net resources to Scottish universities have increased because they have found private and other sources, how can he argue that there has been a net loss to the Scottish economy? The net effect is a net increase to the Scottish economy. Do the Opposition believe that only public expenditure creates wealth, and not money that comes from the private sector?

Student Nurses

Mr. Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the figure for the number of student nurses in Scotland; and how that figure is expected to change over the next three years.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Since 1979 the number of qualified nurses employed by health boards in Scotland has increased by more than 30 per cent.?—from 26,929 to 35,110. The number of student nurses in training has increased by 15 per cent. At 30 September 1987 there were 8,694 student nurses in training in Scotland. The number of student nurses over the next three years will be affected by a range of factors, but we intend to maintain our splendid record in this area.

Mr. Steel: Does the Minister accept that falling school rolls will make it difficult to keep up the number of recruited student nurses? That is, perhaps, something that the Government can do little about. What effect does he think the poll tax will have on that, given that Scottish student nurses will have to pay it for at least a year, while English student nurses will not? Will that not have a devastating effect on student nurse recruitment north of the border?

Mr. Forsyth: If it were true it might, but it is not true. As the right hon. Gentleman must know, we have responded to the Project 2,000 proposals and there is no question of the status of student nurses in Scotland being altered in 1990 or of there being a period when student nurses are put in a different position from anyone else. The right hon. Gentleman might have taken the opportunity to welcome the new £32 million hospital in his constituency, which will be opened this week by Her Majesty The Queen, which will have a new training centre for student nurses to ensure that student nurses are recruited and equipped to meet the needs of his health board and his constituency.

Mr. Strang: Surely the Minister recognises that as things stand student nurses in Scotland, unlike their English counterparts, will have to pay the poll tax in its first year of operation. Surely that is anomalous and unfair. Are the Government prepared to look at that again?

Mr. Forsyth: That is the unsophisticated version of the argument that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) was making. Student nurses and every other group in Scotland will pay the poll tax before those in England [Interruption.]—the community charge—because we are introducing the

community charge a year earlier. Why does the hon. Gentleman not ask me about the fact that student nurses will stop paying rates in Scotland a year earlier than in England? [Interruption.]

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that Scotland's splendid record for training nurses has been continued and improved under the Conservative Government, and that one of the things that we are so proud of is that in every part of the world one will always meet nurses who have been trained in Scotland? Will my hon. Friend also confirm that nurses, like everyone else who will be required to pay the community charge, will, where their incomes so merit, receive rebates, so all the Opposition's fears are just nonsense?

Mr. Forsyth: My hon. Friend is correct about rebates, but as we have increased the pay of student nurses so substantially they will find themselves moving up the income scale. Those hon. Members who shouted out that student nurses do not pay rates either do not live in the real world or assume that all student nurses live in hospital accommodation, which they do not. The end of rating will be taken into account.

Rating Reform

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from England on the poll tax.

Mr. Lang: Eighty seven such representations have been received since 1 January 1988.

Mr. Allen: Is the Minister aware that, despite the Government, Scottish higher education still enjoys a high reputation and that a large number of English students go to Scotland for their education? Is he further aware that the poll tax will act as a disincentive to those students and the reduced number of English students going to Scotland to study may well diminish the number of Scottish Tory Members in the House?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman's question makes a change from the usual complaint that we receive in Scotland that there are too many English students corning up. But the quality of higher education in Scotland is such that it will continue to attract English students in large numbers. Where they find themselves liable to pay 20 per cent. of the community charge they will be able to console themselves with the thought that they are saving a substantial amount on rates, which would otherwise be included in their rent and rates payment.

Mr. Worthington: The Minister will be aware that there is widespread anxiety that, with revaluation and the introduction of the uniform business rate in England and Wales, the present beneficial treatment that the north of England receives in terms of the amount of rates paid will be even greater and there will be a substantial disadvantage to Scottish industry. The Minister will also be aware that the CBI and the chambers of commerce in all sectors of Scottish public life are worried that the Scottish Office is taking no steps whatever to protect Scottish industry and commerce when that occurs. Will he comment?

Mr. Lang: I shall gladly comment. As a former finance convenor of Strathclyde regional council, the hon.


Gentleman knows better than most the measure of the burden that Scottish Labour-controlled councils have laid on business in Scotland over the years, as a result of which Scottish business pays higher rates than other parts of the United Kingdom. Until we can achieve harmonisation of valuation law and practice north and south of the border, we have introduced index-linking in the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Act 1987 to protect business in Scotland from the depredations of members of local authorities, which is what the hon. Gentleman was formerly.

Lotteries

Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any plans to raise money for health boards by means of a lottery.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: No, Sir.

Mrs. Fyfe: In the light of that definite reply, will the Minister explain why he contemplates a lottery for the funding of local authorities?

Mr. Forsyth: I am sorry, but I did not hear the question.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The reason why the Minister did not——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Fyfe.

Mrs. Fyfe: Conservative Members seem to think that they are wits, but they are only half right. I shall repeat my question. If the Minister thinks it is so easy to answer no in the case of health boards, will he explain why he can contemplate such things to provide funding for local authorities, to reward people who pay the poll tax properly?

Mr. Forsyth: I apologise to the hon. Lady.
The national lottery in connection with the collection of the community charge is what I suppose her question relates to. These provisions were introduced in the Local Government Finance Bill at the request of local authorities so that they might have the opportunity to offer incentives to people who agree to pay their community charge in a way that minimises local authorities' collection costs. [Interruption.] I can well imagine why Opposition Members are muttering that that is amazing. It did not come across in that way in the press, but the request came from local authorities.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this is a genuine point of order and not merely the hon. Gentleman disagreeing with something.

Mr. Salmond: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) was asking her question I heard Conservative Members making racist remarks across the Chamber. I distinctly heard them asking her to put her question in English, which was clearly a racist remark.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order of this sort take up time. Perhaps the hon. Lady was not heard easily from the Government Front Bench when she put her question, but she put it very well.

Mrs. Fyfe: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other hon. Members want to take part in Question Time, too.

Scottish Financial Enterprise

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the executive director of Scottish Financial Enterprise; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Lang: I met Professor Shaw and other members of the board of Scottish Financial Enterprise on 6 June as part of a regular exchange of views on topics relevant to the financial services industry in Scotland.

Mr. Bruce: Does the Minister agree that Scotland's growing importance as a financial centre is a considerable asset to the country, but one that could be used to greater advantage? Would he be prepared to discuss ways in which this financial strength could increase the number of home-grown locally controlled enterprises in Scotland, and could initiatives be taken to achieve that?

Mr. Lang: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. Scotland's financial sector has increased by 40 per cent. in employment terms in the past decade. We are increasingly attracting overseas companies to invest in Scotland because of this strength. I know that Scottish Financial Enterprise is perfectly willing to contemplate a greater involvement in parts of Scotland other than just the central belt. We are also developing enterprise trusts around Scotland—there arc 40 around the country—with a view to developing a greater commitment and understanding of enterprise.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend agree that the location of overseas financial institutions in Scotland is making a substantial contribution of our balance of payments and is a vote of confidence in the Scottish and United Kingdom economy?

Mr. Lang: That is absolutely right. It may be because manufacturing productivity in Scotland has risen by 5·6 per cent. a year on average in the past eight years, thus taking us to the top of the league of OECD countries.

Mr. Ron Brown: Speaking in a posh accent for the benefit of The Guardian columnists, may I remind the Minister that Jackie Stewart and his Tory friends recently visited Gleneagles? Those individuals repeatedly dodged tax and made sure that the Exchequer did not receive sums of money that should have been spent in Scotland. Clearly, something should be done about that. Will the Minister comment on that abuse?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman would like to send me further details of his allegations I shall look at them. As far as I am aware, Mr. Jackie Stewart and some other people recently visited Gleneagles to raise a large amount of money for charity. That is an altogether commendable activity.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the Scottish unemployment figures for May 1987 and May 1988; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The total number of unemployed claimants in Scotland was 346,140 in May 1987 and 296,821 in May 1988. Unemployment in Scotland has now reached its lowest level for six years. The firm downward trend over the last year is clear evidence of the success of the Government's economic policies.

Mr. Forth: In welcoming my hon. Friend's announcement of this excellent trend in the figures, and in trusting that the Opposition will unreservedly welcome it, may I ask him to confirm that the trend is due to the burgeoning success of the private sector in Scotland? Does he also agree that the traditional and historic over-dependence of Scots on the public sector is now firmly behind us and that we can look forward to a continuing fall in unemployment because of the success of the private sector?

Mr. Lang: I entirely share my hon. Friend's view about the reason for this growing success of the Scottish economy. He will be as encouraged as I was today to learn that the latest Fraser of Allander Institute report shows that the Scottish economy is now moving in line with that of the rest of the United Kingdom and expects that over the next five years employment in Scotland may grow by 100,000.

Mr. Dewar: How does the Minister justify his complacent statement that we are performing in line with the rest of the United Kingdom when we have slipped so conspicuously behind the rest of the United Kingdom in productivity, and especially in unemployment rates?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about productivity. I said that it had increased by 5·6 per cent. per annum since 1979. That compares with 3·9 per cent. in the United Kingdom as a whole. Scotland has done remarkably well. The news about the Scottish economy now moving in line with the rest of the United Kingdom came from the Fraser of Allander Institute, not from me.

Rating Reform

Mr. Allen Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps his Department is taking to encourage local authorities to seek the prompt payment of poll tax as a lump sum.

Mr. Lang: Following consultation with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities an amendment has been made to the Local Government Finance Bill in the other place which would give community charge levying authorities in Scotland power to offer discounts or other incentives to encourage community charge payers to enter into payment arrangements of financial benefit to the authority. Such arrangements could include payment by a lump sum.

Mr. Adams: Scottish Opposition Members understand just how much of a lottery Government policy is. Chancellors tend to like lotteries. Will the Minister take this opportunity to try to expunge some of his heinous guilt by saying that he will dissociate himself completely from any local authority attempting to run a lottery for those who can afford to pay their poll tax in one lump sum? That excludes the vast majority of people who cannot afford to pay it in that way.

Mr. Lang: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the amendment tabled to the Local Government Finance Bill

had no effect in changing the law, but simply clarifies it in response to a request from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The provision for lotteries which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Max ton) described as, "Mad—a really crazy scheme," and which his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) described as, "A bad joke", was enshrined in the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 brought in by the last Labour Government.

Bus Fares

Mr. Wray: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been, in percentages and for each year since 1974, the average increase in bus fares in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Information on bus fare increases in Scotland is readily available only from 1980. I have arranged for a table to be placed in the Library which shows annual fares increases from 1980.

Mr. Wray: Does the Minister agree that since deregulation of public transport there has been a substantial increase in fares and drastic cuts in services in some areas that have brought hardship to large families in perimeter schemes? Does he also agree that all transport should be transferred back to the regional authorities?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, Sir. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The figures show that the overall annual fare increases from 1983 have been modest and below the rate of inflation. On routes that are subject to competition, fares have generally fallen or have increased at a rate below the rate of inflation. On other routes fares have generally increased in line with inflation. What has undoubtedly happened since deregulation is that vehicle mileage has increased by 4 per cent. and many innovative services have been introduced. For example, in Fort William, independent Gaelic Bus is competing with the Scottish Bus Group operator, Highland Scottish, and that has led to fare reductions on some routes.

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend tell some of the carping Jeremiahs on the Opposition Benches that there were plenty of their spiritual cousins south of the border before deregulation, but that since deregulation they have been strangely silent? Perhaps Opposition Members should take a leaf out of our book.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The object of privatisation is to ensure that the services are more responsive to the requirements and needs of the consumer.

Mr. Bandur Singh

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in his inquiries into the treatment in Her Majesty's prison Barlinnie of the late Mr. Bandur Singh; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I understand that the procurator fiscal has instructed the police to investigate the allegations. It would not be appropriate for me to comment before the outcome of those investigations is known.

Mr. Galloway: Is the Minister aware of the state of anxiety, bordering on real fear, felt in many of Scotland's ethnic communities as a result of this case and others? Can


he begin to grasp what it must have been like for a person to spend six months without being able to speak any English, in the cauldron of hate that Barlinnie and other Scottish prisons have become, for no crime other than being in the country without proper documentation? Is there not a better way of treating people suspected of being in the country illegally than slamming them up in Barlinnie for six months, where this particular individual was treated so badly that he ended up dying on a bus in the Punjab when he was released.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of very important points. I have asked the Chief Inspector of Prisons to make inquiries and

investigations as to whether the prison service ought to be making any improvements in the arrangements for accommodating those who may be deported. I have given details to the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who raised this matter. One of the reasons why the person was in prison for so long was that the hon. Member for Monklands, West had applied on his behalf for political asylum. Thorough investigations were made, and I shall give whatever information is available to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway).

Mr. Tom Clarke: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order after the statement.

Official Secrets Act 1911

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about reform of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911.
In a debate in this House on 15 January, I explained that the Government had, since the previous April, been studying proposals for the reform of section 2, and that I hoped to bring forward proposals in the form of a White Paper in June.
I have laid the White Paper before the House today. We have aimed to find proposals that are effective, enforceable and reasonable. We hope to break the deadlock that has beset this question throughout its recent history.
We have taken careful note of the criticisms made of the Government Bill introduced in 1979, together with comments and suggestions made since then, including during the debate on the Bill introduced in January by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). As a result, the proposals in the White Paper include some major changes to, as well as similarities with, previous attempts at reform. I invite right hon. and hon. Members to read the White Paper in full, but I offer the House now an outline of the main points.
The essence of the proposals is that it would no longer be a criminal offence, as it is under the present law, to disclose any official information without authority. The scope of the legislation would be confined to the very small amount of information that it is in the whole nation's interest to keep secret and which would therefore continue to have the protection of the criminal law. Other information which cannot be disclosed without breaching the trust between Ministers and officials, or which a Crown servant has been instructed not to disclose, would continue to be protected by normal disciplinary arrangements.
Six categories of official information would be within the scope of our proposed legislation. They are information relating to defence, international relations, security and intelligence, the interception of communications, information received in confidence from other Governments and from international organisations and, finally, information which is likely to be useful in the commission of crime or in helping a prisoner to escape from custody. These are the areas which we think the legislation should cover. We do not propose that the criminal law should any longer apply to, for example, economic information, or to Cabinet documents or ministerial correspondence in general. Nor do we now think it necessary for information received in confidence from firms or individuals to be covered by a general law on official secrets. These proposals represent a further narrowing compared with the 1979 Bill.
We think it should continue to be an offence for any person to disclose any information relating to or obtained by interception, or any information received in confidence from other Governments or international organisations, because any such disclosure damages the national interest. We accept, however, that not all information in the defence and international relations categories needs the protection of the law. We therefore propose that the disclosure of information falling within these categories should be an offence only if it is likely to result in specified damage to the national interest.
Proposed tests of damage are set out in the White Paper. Hon. Members will see that they are narrower and more specific than the broad test of serious injury to the interests of the nation which was recommended by the Franks committee and contained in the 1979 Bill. They are designed to leave no doubt about the reasons for including information within these categories in official secrets legislation. The same applies to information likely to be useful in the commission of crime or in helping prisoners to escape. In this case, a test of damage is built into the categorisation, and the prosecution would have to show that the test was satisfied.
For information relating to security and intelligence, we propose a distinction between those whom the nation trusts to carry on their work in complete secrecy, on the one hand, and of those outside the field of operation of the security and intelligence services on the other. For members and former members of those services, together with a number of other people who work in close association with them, we propose that it should be an offence to disclose any information concerning the work of the services or to make any statement which purports to disclose such information. For other persons—that is, for people who are not or who have not been members of those services or in related work—we propose that the disclosure of official information and security intelligence should be an offence only if it can be established positively that it was likely to damage the operation of the security and intelligence services.
If disclosure of information within a particular category is to be an offence only if it can be established that it meets a specified test of harm, then the old question arises—by whom and by what means is this to be decided? The Franks committee, and the Government in that 1979 Bill, proposed that the question should be conclusively settled by ministerial certificate. This was one of the main points of criticism of that Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills later suggested that a certificate by a Minister should be reviewable by some other person or body.
Under our new proposals, however, there are no ministerial certificates. The harm likely to arise from the disclosure would be a matter for the court alone to determine on the basis of argument from the prosecution and the defence. In relation to persons other than Crown servants, the prosecution would have to prove not only that the specified harm was likely to arise but that the accused person knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that it was likely to arise. We are putting our trust in the impartial determination of a jury.
The abandonment of ministerial certificates, and introduction of specific tests of harm for the courts to determine, are major changes from previous proposals. They provide a new framework within which other proposals, made in the context of the 1979 Bill, must be considered afresh. I have in mind particularly the suggestions that there should be a defence of prior publication and a general defence that publication was in the public interest. Within the framework of these new proposals, we do not think it right to provide an overriding defence of prior publication.
In our proposals, arguments about the effect of a second disclosure are for the judgment of the courts within the ambit of the specific tests of harm set by Parliament. So it would be possible on this basis for the court to conclude that further harm was unlikely to arise from the disclosure


in question because there had been a previous disclosure which had already caused the harm. But we think it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of prosecution altogether just because the information had already been published elsewhere—perhaps in different form to a different audience. Nor do we think it right to introduce the uncertainty into the law which a general public interest defence would inevitably entail.
These are the main features of our proposals as set out in the White Paper. They represent a considered attempt to find the basis for a wide measure of agreement in replacing section 2, which all of us wish to do. If carried into effect, they should dispel any notion that the criminal law is being used to protect information simply because its disclosure would be embarrassing to Governments, still less merely because it is official information. But the law must firmly address the problem of disclosures which are truly damaging to the public interest, and provide clear and enforceable definitions and procedures to enable this to be done.
The House should have an opportunity to debate the proposals before they are put into legislative form. We shall take careful note also of views expressed outside the House. We shall then want to move to early legislation to introduce a fair and effective alternative to section 2.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: Is the Home Secretary aware that many hon. Members—perhaps the majority—believe that prosecution under any Official Secrets Act should be possible only when the disclosure of information has genuinely damaged or prejudiced the national interest? In his statement the right hon. Gentleman has sought to give the impression that he supports that view, and that the arbitrary and unjustified application of an official secrets law is now to be abandoned. A reading of the White Paper, as distinct from the Home Secretary's statement, shows that not to be true.
We welcome, of course, the removal from the provisions of any Official Secrets Act the omnibus clause covering every item of Government information. We agree that many instances of improper revelation are more suitable for internal disciplinary procedures than for the criminal law. Our real concern relates to paragraphs 41 and 42 of the White Paper, which deal with what is called the security services. These are services which in Britain, as in other democracies, should be subject to general parliamentary scrutiny.
Does the Home Secretary recall that many of the repressive and authoritarian acts perpetrated by the Government over the past nine years have been justified by invoking the name of the security services? Is he aware that that catch-all provision still applies? Indeed, in some ways it is reinforced and made respectable. Does the Home Secretary recall that in the debate in January he derided the present law, which is so ridiculous as technically to make the publication of a Civil Service canteen menu an offence? Paragraphs 41 and 42 make it clear that the unauthorised revelation of the menus at Curzon street or GCHQ is to become a criminal offence. Everything that the Home Secretary defines as "relating to security" is automatically the subject of criminal prosecutions without any of the safeguards which his statement has emphasised.
Is the Home Secretary aware that, until the behaviour of the security forces is no longer cloaked in impenetrable

legal protection, most people will continue to believe, in the words of paragraph 32 of the White Paper, that information is being withheld and
protected by the criminal law merely for fear of political embarrassment"?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any revelation of any information that is said to be "related to security"—"related to security" on the Minister's own definition—will be a criminal offence when carried out by members of the security service, ex-members of the security service, those who work with them and support them, whose who are in frequent contact with them and those who deal with them on a regular basis? These are all areas—and there are more—that have been discredited by section 11 of the old Act, which the Home Secretary pretends that he is in some way removing and abolishing.
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how the term "relating to security" is to be defined? Unless it is circumscribed with an exact precision, it will allow Ministers to include within that automatic category for criminal prosecution anything that they wish to include. There is no doubt that while the Home Secretary represents this as a libertarian move, Mr. Clive Ponting, who was found not guilty under the existing Act, would certainly be convicted under the provisions that the Home Secretary has set out today.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I anticipated that a number of Government Members below the Gangway would cheer. They may be pleased by that provision, but they cannot claim that it liberalises the present law.
If Ministers claim that the security services are involved and are connected with almost anything they care to put within that category, none of the defences that the Home Secretary so strongly emphasised will apply. There will be no defence in terms of the national interest not having been damaged. The Minister will have arbitrary and authoritarian power to include within the criminal prosecution section whatever he or his successor chooses to include.
Nor will that test apply—although the Home Secretary gave a different impression in his statement—in one other respect. According to paragraph 51 of the White Paper, the "harmful to public interest" defence does not apply to information obtained from other Governments. I assume that, ironically, that was included to please and placate the United States of America, whose Senate and Congress would not give house room to the proposals that the Home Secretary is making today.
There are many other inadequacies, shortcomings and omissions. There is the absence of a public interest defence, and the fact that although something may already have been published, it can still he the subject of criminal prosecution if its publication is repeated. There is also included within the catch-all, omnibus definition of security matters those things which ex-members of the security services or their associates may say and which happen to be untrue, or are no more than pub talk, but which will nevertheless be automatically regarded as damaging to the public interest.
We shall return to all those shortcomings in the debate. The point that really must be driven home today is this. Today's newspapers, for reasons we can only guess at, predicted a draconian White Paper, and that is what we have been given. However, it is a different White Paper from that which the newspapers predicted—but it is just as


bad and just as unacceptable in a free society. Anyone who reads the White Paper rather than relies on and trusts the Home Secretary's statement will know that to be a fact.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is making an ass of himself. For more than a week, he has been very voluble in talking to and commenting in the newpapers on this subject, on the basis of wholly inaccurate press reports. In particular, they specified in some detail that there had been some great battle in Whitehall, as a result of which it had been decided to introduce ministerial certificates that would in some way be binding on the courts. That was nonsense, and today it is seen to he nonsense.
I do not expect to carry everybody with me, but every fair-minded person will accept that we have gone considerably further in an open direction than was expected—much further than the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member were prepared to go 10 years ago. We are, in effect, confining the criminal law not to matters that might be embarrassing for the Government but to matters that really need to be kept secret if our affairs are to be properly run. In that context, it is right to distinguish clearly between Crown servants and members of the public and those who have, as the White Paper puts it, a special and inescapable duty of secrecy, either because they belong, or have belonged, to the security or intelligence service, or have been one of a number of people whose work connects closely with those services.
It is reasonable, when one is talking about security and intelligence information, to distinguish between disclosures by those people and disclosures undertaken by the press or people outside those services, where the test of damage would apply. The right hon. Gentleman speaks as though the Minister was to decide. Of course it will be the jury that decides in all such cases, and the idea that the jury will decide on a menu in a security service canteen is absurd.
I also think that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong to refer back to the Ponting case. That is always a tricky thing to do. If a similar case came up tomorrow, the prosecution would have to face a higher hurdle than the one that the prosecution had to face under the existing section 2. It would have to show, in the Ponting case, that very specific damage had been done to the defence of the nation, which under the existing section 2 does not have to be shown.
I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's interpretation, and I believe that he underestimates the change that we propose—a change that means that, for example, a leaked Cabinet paper on housing, however controversial, or the details of a Budget being prepared, will no longer receive any protection from the criminal law. That is a major change, which it is churlish of the right hon. Gentleman not to acknowledge.

Mr. Leon Brittan: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his proposals will be regarded in large part by Conservative Members as a substantial, much-needed and thoroughly desirable liberalisation of the law, and be welcomed as such?
While some details are of course challengeable, does my right hon. Friend agree that the abolition of the system of binding ministerial certificates will in practice mean that, in the majority of cases, the media will be able to argue that the publication is not harmful and is therefore defensible, either because it has previously been in the public domain

or for other reasons? Does he also accept that the vast majority of the people of this country regard it as entirely reasonable that those who embark on a career as members of the security and intelligence services should accept an obligation of secrecy, provided that there is a satisfactory system whereby, within the public service, complaints of abuse, misconduct and impropriety can be properly investigated?

Mr. Hurd: I am most grateful to my right hon. arid learned Friend. I confirm what he has said, and the substantial relief that the proposals, if approved by Parliament, will give the press.
My right hon. and learned Friend is right to emphasise his last point, and I understand why he did so. It is important that the individual civil servant should feel confidence in the procedure which provides him with recourse to his permanent secretary and eventually to the head of the Civil Service. In the security service fairly recently we instituted the position of staff counsellor—at present held by Sir Philip Woodfield—who has access to me where necessary. I agree about the importance of those procedures.
My right hon. and learned Friend has himself worked hard in this sphere, and has substantial experience of it. I am, therefore, especially grateful for his support.

Mr. David Steel: I hope that the Home Secretary did not give me a different edition of the White Paper from the one that he gave the Leader of the Opposition. On first reading, the White Paper seems to me to represent a considerable victory for the House, and for hon. Members on both sides who campaigned for the abolition of section 2 and the philosophy that lies behind it—in particular the abandonment of ministerial certificates and the specific tests of harm for the courts to determine. Will the Home Secretary confirm that if the White Paper had been in legislative form Miss Sarah Tisdall, for example, would never have been prosecuted and sent to prison, but would have been subject to disciplinary proceedings?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I have one reservation, which is the lack of the specific public interest defence? Does he accept that circumstances might arise in which a court could decide that harm had been caused, but the House might consider that the harm was overlaid by the public interest in the disclosure?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Member fonTweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) for the main thrust of what he said, which gives the balance rather better than the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) achieved. It is too early to distribute any medals on the subject, but the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale is right. Of course we took into account, as I said we would, points made in the House, including those made in the debate in January on the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills.
I am reluctant to hark back to old cases and say what would have happened. Obviously Miss Tisdall would not have been treated as a former member of the intelligence or security services. I do not know whether it would have been thought that what she did could have passed the test of damage. I do not think that one sensibly can speculate about that.
The right hon. Gentleman is on to a point that we shall want to discuss at greater length when he talks about the public interest defence. Where there is a test of damage, we have set out certain narrow specific tests of damage which the prosecution will need to establish. In many cases it will find that difficult because the tests are quite high. It would be confusing and difficult if, in addition, we tried to provide in some general form for a public interest defence.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for providing me with an opportunity to read the White Paper an hour or so ago, because the balance of his remarks is confounded by any reading of that paper. It is a most extraordinary document, inasmuch as it makes whole areas of our national life subject to almost mandatory ministerial judgments, without the ability of a court to find otherwise unless a jury decides to put up two fingers. It extends the law into areas to which it did not apply previously, such as where information has been published abroad freely and it was not an offence to publish it here.
It is a very repressive measure indeed. There is no balancing factor—which is very important—of the public interest whereby someone can say that it was necessary for the public to know about something. This goes to the heart of our democratic institutions. The White Paper contains a whole series of very unhappy contentions. It is illiberal and it is not consonant with the experience and practices in Canada, Australia and the United States. I do not know what world we think we live in when we try to bind up a certain class of civil servants so that they may never again speak about anything in their lives in regard to certain duties.
My hon. Friend makes the contention that it will be effective and enforceable, but it will not be reasonable. How will it be reasonable when, for instance, we know that our security services, at the order of the British Government, put limpet mines on Jewish refugees' boats going to Israel? I would argue that it is in the public interest that we know about public policies of that nature. The White Paper will ensure that we know nothing about areas of our national life.

Mr. Hurd: I did not expect to carry my hon. Friend totally, but I must say that I am surprised at the result of his reading of the White Paper. He has fastened on a tiny but important section of official information. He has neglected to observe the great area which is being freed entirely from the reach of the criminal law with substantial influence on how the country is governed. It is a matter on which there will be substantial argument, and I do not agree with him. He is quite right to draw attention to the fact that we intend to bring within the scope of the law cases of matter published abroad as a result of information from this country. The reason for it is set out in the White Paper.
In other respects, as I believe is abundantly right, we are distinguishing between ordinary servants of the Crown and people outside Crown service and those in the particular categories of the security and intelligence services. Of course, as time passes, it will be increasingly possible for members and former members of those services to publish with authority. My hon. Friend knows that that happens already. It is specifically provided for

here, and it will continue to happen. There is no reason why it should not happen, but I believe that it should be with authority. I believe that my hon. Friend is attacking not so much the content of the White Paper as the way in which the security and intelligence services are run and their responsibility to this House. That is the crux of what he said, and I shall rest on what I have already said in previous debates on the matter.

Mr. Michael Foot: One of the events which have led to this pronouncement—it is not the only one—is the prosecution of Mr. Peter Wright for publishing his memoirs in Australia. He alleged that, for a long time, the secret services grossly misused their power and broke the law with impunity.
Would the proposed changes deprive the Government of the defence that they employed in that case? Would the White Paper make any difference to such a case? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that, if it makes hardly any difference or no difference, the monstrous acts that have been described could be continued without any proper investigation?
One of the reasons for the disturbance in the public mind is that the Government so resolutely persisted with that case, yet they persistently refused to conduct any proper inquiry into gross breaches of the law. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how his proposals will change that? The Leader of the House will confirm that, a little earlier today, the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, spoke in the Banqueting hall about much earlier events. He explained clearly that the main reason for the glorious revolution of 1688 was the gross breach of the law by the Executive. That has happened often, and we want a change in the law to stop it.

Mr. Hurd: If the right hon. Gentleman's point were true, these proposals would end it, as they will perform in line with the traditions of the House. We are proposing that Parliament should clip the wings of any possible abuse of the criminal law by the Executive. We are proposing to narrow, refine and define. That is in the parliamentary tradition which the right hon. Gentleman and the glorious revolution of 1688 embody. We are dealing with the criminal law which, by definition, applies only within the jurisdiction. It is for the right hon. Gentleman to work out what the effect would have been, under the existing law or under our proposals, if Mr. Wright had remained in the jurisdiction.

Mr. John Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that any impartial reader of the White Paper would regard it as an extremely liberal and practical document which identifies areas where the law should apply? Crown servants who have a lifetime responsibility to the British people are catered for quite properly, subject to the provision that my right hon. Friend has referred to. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, compared with any recent proposals, particularly those of the Labour party in 1978, this document is a remarkable advance?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has studied these matters deeply. It is noticeable that, when the Labour Government tackled this subject, they proposed to cover Cabinet documents and information on currency and reserves. They proposed to rely on the classification of documents as the test and said that the responsible Minister should review that classification, and that his


certificate about it should be conclusive evidence. We have travelled a long way since the Labour White Paper and, compared with it, our proposals are a model of openness and liberalism.

Dr. David Owen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that paragraphs 38 to 48 of the White Paper deal with the security and intelligence services and rightly treat them as being different from anyone else working in Government employment, but that it would be far easier for the House to accept the purport of them if the right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister would look again at the case for parliamentary scrutiny of the security and intelligence services?
As to the other parts of this complex and interlocking package, particularly paragraph 51, on information obtained in confidence from other Governments or international organisations, which goes extremely wide, will the right hon. Gentleman live up to the wording in paragraph 61, which says:
the Government is of the mind that there should be no general public interest defence
and recognise that the balance of this legislation depends on there being a general interest defence? Without it, it is fatally flawed.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's first point about the need to put in a separate category those who owe a duty of trust and secrecy. I agree that we want to consider carefully the definition of categories and the test within each category.
This is White Paper, not legislative, language, and before it goes into legislative language there will have to be a debate. The House will want to consider carefully the legislative language when the Bill appears. I accept that entirely. I do not think that I have anything to add to the point about a general public interest defence.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, on close reading, the White Paper seems to be very helpful to state prosecutors? The narrowing of the classification of some types of information no longer covered by the criminal law is welcome, but to many of us of a libertarian frame of mind there are still grave defects in certain sections which I hope will be remedied before legislation is brought forward. How does my right hon. Friend justify abolishing by legislation the two principal defences of iniquity and prior publication which, during the past half century, have allowed some juries occasionally to acquit a few defendants, even under the 1911 Act?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that my hon. Friend is entirely accurate. We are not abolishing any existing defences. When he talks about the public interest defence—he kindly drew my attention to this this morning—he may be referring to section 2(1)(a) of the 1911 Act where there is a reference to the interests of the state. The courts have never interpreted that in criminal cases as to be distinguished from the interests of the Government.
As to prior publication, when there is a test of damage, with the exception of the security and intelligence services, it will be open to the defendant who it is alleged has committed a damage to say, "My disclosure cannot have committed this damage because it appeared in the Boston Globe or Time magazine a fortnight ago." That will make it that much harder for the prosecution to persevere and to prove that damage done by the second disclosure is as

serious as is needed under our proposals. The concept of a test of damage, rather than ministerial certificate and a jury deciding, includes to a reasonable extent the defence of prior publication.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Why does the Home Secretary make out that there would have been a higher hurdle for the prosecution in the Ponting case? Given her frame of mind at the time, would not the Prime Minister have seized on paragraph 4 of the White Paper, which says:
there should be a power for the responsible Minister to designate individuals or groups whose duties necessarily involve extensive familiarity with the work of the security and intelligence services as having the same criminal liability as members of these services in respect of the disclosure of information relating to security or intelligence."?
Whatever the view of the Home Secretary, would not Downing street have insisted that Clive Ponting was in that category and therefore he would almost certainly have gone to clink? Where lie the powers of juries? Would not Mr. Justice McCowan have got his way?
A former Prime Minister is present and he ought to look at the case of Anthony Cavendish. Under the juxtapositioning of paragraphs 42 and 47, how on earth would Anthony Cavendish have not got into the greatest difficulty for talking about the destabilisation of the Heath Government?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on his first point. He is certainly wrong to suggest that the position of the jury would be undermined. One of the features of the proposals is the reinforcement of the role of the jury. It is difficult to hark back and apply new proposals to old cases, but I believe that the prosecution in the Ponting case would have had to prove that Mr. Ponting had, in one way or another, inflicted damage on the defence of the country, as specified in paragraph 49 of the White Paper.
I will not comment on the position of Mr. Cavendish or on what he might or might not have been prosecuted for. The distinction we make between Crown servants and former members of the intelligence and security services is clear and thoroughly defensible.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of the House on beating his deadline for publishing the White Paper by about 32 hours and for confounding many of the recent press critics? He is to be congratulated on scrapping the idea of ministerial certification. That is a step in the right direction. Apart from the idea of judicial review, it is difficult to know what could be a better arrangement than review by jury.
May I suggest that my right hon. Friend should turn his attention to an issue that he mentioned in an earlier reply—the specific section relating to the disclosure without authority of any information on the work of the security and intelligence services? Would he consider including in the legislation a specific mechanism that gives such individuals the opportunity to obtain clearance so that we do not find ourselves in the difficulties that have been experienced recently? In America there is an effective system, and we have recently experienced two cases of CIA chiefs of station in London being able to publish their books in America and England with official sanction. Surely that is a much more sensible arrangement. Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider including such a mechanism in the legislation?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general support. Of course there is a procedure with which my hon. Friend is familiar. The defects do not seem to have impeded him in making some progress in the matter. This is not a matter for legislation, although my hon. Friend will no doubt develop his case. It is a matter for sensible and sensitive procedures which are fair to people who want to write and which also provide a satisfactory means of safeguarding information that has to be safeguarded.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is another statement after this and a rare opportunity for Northern Ireland Members to take part in a debate. Therefore, I ask for brief questions, and not on points that may already have been put.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Home Secretary aware that over the past five years there have been revelations from Cathy Massiter, Clive Ponting, Sarah Tisdall and Peter Wright of the political activities of the security services and clear efforts by them to destabilise past Labour Governments? In the light of those revelations, does the Home Secretary accept that his White Paper does nothing towards bringing the security services under political control? Should he not now bring forward proposals to do just that, so that we are no longer faced with the idea of security services, paid by us, which can politically attempt to destabilise a future Labour Government?

Mr. Hurd: That is a separate matter that the House has debated and may one day return to. It is not covered in the proposals. The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set up an investigation into those points and reported the outcome to the House.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government have gone too far in entrusting the safeguarding of the public interest to the verdicts of individual juries, which are notoriously liable to return perverse verdicts in cases of this sort? Who better than the elected Government of the day, controlled by the House of Commons, to determine the public interest?

Mr. Hurd: I am not surprised that a note of criticism from that wing of the argument should be sounded. It provides a healthy corrective to some of the criticisms I have received in the opposite direction. My hon. Friend has a point, and that is why originally and for some time successive Governments have clung to the idea that the Executive should have a say, either a decisive or an influential say, before a jury reaches its conclusion. Having reviewed all the arguments, including my hon. Friend's point, we came to the conclusion some time ago that the game was not worth the candle. In spite of what my hon. Friend says, we believe that the best answer in such cases is to rely on the jury.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Is the Secretary of State aware that the White Paper appears to be a liberalising White Paper only in the context of the press stories that have been floated for at least a week previously threatening all manner of draconian measures? Will he take this opportunity to

assure the House that the floating of those press stories was entirely fortuitous and was not a deliberate attempt to allow him to bask in the mantle of the great reformer?

Mr. Hurd: We are not as clever as that in the Home Office. It is fairly clear what happened. The persistent critics of the Government on this issue erected, from January onwards, a caricature of Government policy with which they began to frighten themselves. They began to write stories as if we were about to do what they feared rather than what I said in the January debate we would do.
What we are now doing is close to the agenda I then set. It falls exactly within the general approach we have stated consistently to the House.

Mr. Richard Page: I welcome my right hon. Friend's moves to reform section 2 and to bring about the abandonment of ministerial certification. However, will he assure hon. Members and those in the country who are not into the details of the Official Secrets Act that the Government will not hesitate to prosecute to the limit of their legal ability people such as Peter Wright who betrayed their trust in the country?

Mr. Hurd: Decisions on prosecutions are not for me. The balance we want to strike in the proposals includes retaining and making effective the ability to protest, by use of the criminal law, those parts of official information where it is necessary to do that.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is proposing nothing that in future will stop former security officers from retiring overseas and spilling the beans? Can he say what financial implications he believes will result from his proposals, especially in estimated legal costs? Has it ever crossed his mind that the best course would be to repeal the Official Secrets Act and replace it with a freedom of information Act and proper democratic accountability for the security services?

Mr. Hurd: Obviously the criminal law reaches as far as it can and no further. I cannot possibly say whether there are likely to be more or fewer prosecutions. We are trying to define the area in which criminal prosecutions are justified.
The hon. Gentleman's third point is a familiar one which links this subject with freedom of information. Clearly this is not a freedom of information Bill, but I believe that, especially in the areas of the security and intelligence services, no Government have provided more information to the House and the public on such matters than we have.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: First, is it really fair or reasonable that there should not be any public interest defence that a member of the security services can even argue before a court if he has revealed something that was unauthorised, undemocratic and unfair? Does the Home Secretary think that it is fair to say to people, "You can to go court," when the law has taken away all the defences that they might make?
Secondly, can my right hon. Friend say something about paragraph 51, which states that any revelation of any communication from any international organisation, irrespective of the harm which might be involved, will


result in prosecution? Does that cover all international organisations and, for example, the masses of documents that we get every day from the EEC?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend's first point is perhaps the one which will be most controversial between the Government and their critics on, as it were, the liberal side, although we are now developing some critics on what one might call the security side. Anybody joining one of the services that we are discussing knows—the background of those services makes this clear—that there is a special duty of trust and confidentiality which remains after retirement. Although that duty of trust can be mitigated by gaining consent for the publication of this or that, it nevertheless remains. That is the point that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made, and I agree with him.
The House will obviously want to discuss my hon. Friend's point about paragraph 51. Where a Government or international organisation passes any information which is to be held in confidence to the British Government, we would lose that confidence and harm ourselves if we could not keep that confidence. That is the thinking behind paragraph 51, and I think it is right.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is fundamental to our democracy that Ministers tell the truth and that Governments obey the law, and that that applies especially to the security and intelligence services? Why should it be a criminal offence for someone to disclose that a Minister has not told the truth or that the security forces or intelligence services have broken the law?

Mr. Hurd: Other remedies and recourses are open to such a person, which are better suited to his position and the trust that he has undertaken. We are talking about members of the security and intelligence services.

Sir Ian Gilmour: I welcome a number of features in the White Paper, on which I congratulate my right hon. Friend, but does he agree that one of the absurdities of the past few months has been the attempt to stop the British people reading what every other person in the world has been able to read? In view of that, does he not agree that the inclusion of the last sentence of paragraph 26, which states:
its further disclosure in this country should be treated in the same way as if the original disclosure had taken place in this country",
is an attempt to perpetuate that very absurdity?

Mr. Hurd: The House of Lords is considering some of the main issues raised by the "Spycatcher" case, so I will not respond to my right hon. Friend's invitation to tread on that ground. I do not think that paragraph 26 falls into the criticism that he made. It is a worry if such circumstances occur. It is reasonable that, as they come forward, our proposals should include that point.

Mr. Bob Cryer: If members of MI5 assassinate, take part in a seditious conspiracy to overthrow a Government, or seek to lie or to disseminate lies and untruths in a campaign against any political party, and if there are members of MI5 who might, for example, oppose the dominant political philosophy in MI5 at any given time—as Peter Wright pointed out, in 1974 that was support for the Conservative party—and supposing that someone wanted to expose the maggots eating away at our

constitution, is the Secretary of State saying that there are no circumstances in which a member of MI5 would be justified in disclosing a serious attack on our constitutional position or disclosing murder and mayhem, which is what Peter Wright suggested in his book? That would be an outrage against any democratic system.

Mr. Hurd: We are not altering the position in that respect except to the extent that we now have procedures in the security service by which someone in that position can have access to me and, through me, to the Prime Minister. That is the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for those services. The House has often discussed that and I believe that it is the correct way of establishing responsibility for the running of services where the ordinary cut and thrust of public debate obviously does not work and is not justified.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the proposal to give absolute protection to security and intelligence information follows closely the proposals in the 1978 White Paper of the then Labour Government? Does he also agree that the proposal that the determination of harm should be left to the courts represents a great advance on the preferences of the previous Labour Government for dealing with these matters by ministerial certificate? Will he apply a low test of seriousness to the effusions of the Labour party?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is sensible to bring a touch of historical proportion to such matters. The House as a whole has moved on in 1988. The caricature that I am trying to resist and demolish is the caricature which says that, whereas opinion as a whole has moved on, the Government are stuck in some pre-1978 or pre-1988 position. We are now giving a lead in producing a set of proposals which, in many respects, are the most liberal and most open that have been suggested.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In what way would the new proposals enable somebody like me—or, more likely, somebody like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—to demand that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan), the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, tell the truth about the Westland letter? Will the new proposals enable my hon. Friend to get the truth from the Prime Minister without being constantly told that she has nothing further to add? Will they help him to get the truth from the Leader of the House, which is what he has tried to do on previous occasions? If this had been in operation a decade ago, would the proposals have enabled me to ask the then Foreign Secretary, now the leader of the provos, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), to tell me the truth about the £1 billion Chevaline expenditure which was carried through by the Lib-Lab pact?
Is it not true that this so-called liberal Home Secretary kidded his troops the other Friday when he told them not to back his hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), saying, "Leave it to me, I will introduce some liberal legislation"? Well, we have got it, and I do not think it is liberal.

Mr. Hurd: I will need to look carefully at the matter, but I do not think that anything in our proposals will


either add to or detract from the parliamentary powers of those two Members of Parliament, which remain substantial.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that nothing in his proposals will inhibit the proper disclosure by civil servants of authorised information? Is he satisfied that the line of authority which is necessary for such disclosure is sufficiently well defined to avoid misunderstandings in the future?

Mr. Hurd: That is a good point. My hon. Friend is touching on a point that has not yet come out of our exchanges. As whole areas such as the preparation of the Budget, or the discussion of a major and perhaps controversial policy in Cabinet, are withdrawn entirely from the scope of the criminal law, the Civil Service will want to look carefully, as would any organisation, at its methods and procedures of discipline because it is on such procedures that it will have to rely in the future if it is to preserve the kind of information which any major organisation wants to preserve within itself. Therefore, it will be in the same position regarding the great bulk of Government information, as is a newspaper, a political party or a company. It will therefore have to consider its procedures, including the point touched on by my hon. Friend, relating to gaining authority for public disclosures.

Mr. Robin Squire: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a presumption in a democracy in favour of all information gathered at the public's expense being made available to the public, subject, obviously, to certain carefully defined areas, such as national security? Does he feel that the White Paper reflects that presumption?

Mr. Hurd: Yes, the White Paper reflects that presumption and it moves the boundary markedly in the direction of that presumption.

Mr. Tim Devlin: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on abandoning ministerial certificates and on funnelling down secrecy to the six defined areas. Since he mentioned history, how long will those six areas be kept secret? How will the 30-year rule operate, or is he proposing some new rule for when information will become available?

Mr. Hurd: I know of no proposals to change the 30-year rule with the exceptions and procedures built into its operation.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House welcome the fact that members of the intelligence and security services must be covered as proposed in the White Paper? Is he further aware that many individuals who work on sensitive matters, who often undertake dangerous activities and are employed on most peculiar engagements, have poor pension schemes? Perhaps more should be done in that area.
Will my right hon. Friend look carefully at prior publication? Is it not well known that one way of disclosing information is to have some obscure publication printed, for example in Eire or Bangladesh, and then to have it taken up by a major paper in the Western world?

In that way matters which should not be disclosed are disclosed, as has happened in the past. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these measures will take care of that?

Mr. Hurd: I note my hon. Friend's first point and the importance that he attaches to it. His second point is just and is a reason why we have not included a complete defence of prior publication. As I said in my statement, we can imagine circumstances in which information is published in a completely different form to a completely different audience.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: Is my right hon. Friend aware that ordinary British people will fully appreciate the principle concerning the security services and have never understood the fuss made by the media? Will he clarify two points in his statement? First, how far will journalists' freedom be extended by the White Paper? Secondly, what will be the position of senior civil servants on Budget secrets? It is possible to envisage disclosed Budget secrets destabilising the financial market in the United Kingdom and abroad.

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend may be right on the second point. We are not proposing to keep or extend the criminal law in that area, except to the extent that the secret may be a matter of defence security or intelligence, which I doubt. Therefore, protection of information on that subject will rely on the disciplinary arrangements within the Civil Service.
There will be a substantial change in the effect of the law on editors and journalists. Only restricted categories of information will be covered and there will be a specific damage test for defence, security, intelligence and foreign affairs. There will be no ministerial certificates and it will no longer be an offence merely to receive information. Where there are damage tests, the prosecution will have to prove that the damage was likely to be caused and that the defendant, jounalist or editor, knew or had reasonable cause to believe that it was likely to be caused. That position is not only safeguarded but enhanced.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: We all know that grandees, meaning Privy Councillors, always have access to documents before mere humble Back Benchers, and we have got used to that. I should be fascinated to hear from my right hon. Friend whether some Back Benchers are to be given documents an hour or two before the rest of the House. It may well be that an excellent precedent is being set. If this is a precedent so that we can all get documents ahead of time and can take a useful part in debate, so much the better, but who will be the sheep and who the goats? It would be lovely to know. Let us all be sheep or all be goats, but let us not all be led into a position where the Home Secretary can choose those whom he thinks are worthy of having his documents.

Mr. Hurd: I shall not go into the business of choosing between grandees. So far as I am aware, no hon. Member received a copy of the White Paper before——

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) did.

Mr. Hurd: Will my hon. Friend let me finish my sentence?
—it was laid in the usual way in the Vote Office.

Mr. Hattersley: May I say how much I wish that every hon. Member who asked a question had read the White Paper instead of having to rely on the Home Secretary's statement. He was asked several questions about definition, but none has been answered.
Paragraph 47 gives Ministers the right to designate groups and individuals who will not be subject to the normal protections and defences which are stipulated in other parts of the White Paper. Will the Minister alone make that designation? I ask him not to speculate on the groups but to answer the specific question: will the right to designate groups and individuals not subject to the normal protection be up to Ministers alone?

Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, by implication, acknowledges the strength of the normal protection which does not exist yet. In designating, the Minister will be bound by the purpose of designation which is set out in paragraph 7—[interruption] Not at all. It is not a power at large, but a power to designate individuals or groups whose duties necessarily involve extensive familiarity with the work of the security and intelligence services. That is a specific point which the House will undoubtedly want to discuss in detail, and it seems entirely reasonably within that definition.

Furniture (Fire Resistance)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Industry and Consumer Affairs (Mr. John Butcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the fire safety of furniture.
On 11 January 1988 my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs announced the Government's intention to make new regulations about the flammability of domestic upholstered furniture. Draft regulations were circulated for consultation on 1 March and comments invited by 12 May. I am now in a position to announce the changes we propose to make to the regulations as a result of this consultation. I intend to lay the regulations before the House in July.
My hon. Friend announced that the regulations would come into operation on 1 March 1989 for the filling requirements and on 1 March 1990 for covering fabrics. I intend to retain these dates, but to require that furniture supplied to retailers should meet the foam-filling requirement from 1 November 1988. This reflects progress in the changeover to safer materials and gives the retailers a four-month period of grace which will help them to clear existing stocks.
I have decided that covering materials must meet the match resistance test by 1 March 1990. However, some fabrics which are difficult or impossible to treat, but whose burning characteristics are less likely to ignite the filling materials, will be permitted, provided they are used with interliners or barrier cloths which meet the ignition source 5 test. The regulations will specify which materials will be acceptable when used with interliners, and the covering materials concerned will have to meet the cigarette resistance test. This will enable the trade to continue to use many of the fabrics at present on the market, but will not prejudice the level of safety to be achieved by the original proposals.
On second-hand furniture, I have decided that a proposal from enforcement and fire safety organisations should be adopted. From 1 March 1993, all trade sales of modern second-hand furniture will have to comply with the full requirements of the regulations. But from 1 March 1990 to that date the regulations will permit the sale of second-hand, upholstered furniture which complies with the 1980 regulations. Private sales of second-hand goods are excluded from the scope of regulations made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. I also intend to introduce an exemption from these regulations for sales of furniture manufactured before polyurethane foam was generally introduced as a filling material, which was 1950. Furniture made before that date may be traded as collectors' items, but does not contain the material we are banning. This exemption also means that sales of antique or period furniture and reupholstery of antiques are excluded.
For furniture built into new caravans and for garden furniture, the foam requirement will apply from 1 March 1990, because those two sectors of industry have a seasonal pattern of sales that makes it unreasonable to require them to meet the 1 March 1989 deadline. Second-hand caravans will be excluded. The regulations will contain a number of miscellaneous provisions covering specific matters, such as stretch covers, pillows and cushions.
The EC Commission has not raised formal objections, although some member states did object to our original


proposals. The Commission therefore asked that a number of points should be taken into account. In the changes that I have announced, I have met many of those points, and I am satisfied that the regulations will go no further than is necessary in the interests of protecting consumers.
The new regulations have a cost for industry and for the consumer. It would be wrong to underestimate the task that confronts industry in meeting the new requirements within a very short time scale, but there has been a positive response to the challenge. A substantial majority share the Government's determination to ensure that the catalogue of death and injury from fires involving domestic upholstered furniture should be reduced as quickly as is practicable.

Mr. Tony Blair: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to all local authorities, trade unions, fire officers, hon. Members and those in industry who have fought so long and so vigorously on this issue?
I welcome the regulations in so far as they ban the use of killer foam in furniture, bedding and other items, and the phased extension of the ban to second-hand goods, which represents a major advance in fire prevention. However, we are dismayed at the entirely unwarranted exemption of whole categories of ignitable covers from the new tests. The view of fire and of trading standard officers to whom I have spoken is that such an exemption from the regulations will make them seriously defective and will open a potential major loophole in fire safety and enforcement.
Does the Minister recall that the history of the campaign is of initial hostility and scepticism in Government, which has been overcome only by sustained campaigning and publicity? Does he further recall that last October we were told that it was "wholly impracticable and undesirable" to ban standard foam, yet in January he banned it? Does he remember that on 11 January we were told that it was virtually impossible to ban second-hand goods, yet today he has banned them? How many more meals of ministerial words must he eat before the Government listen to the fire safety experts who have been proved right?
Does the Minister realise that tests have shown that ignitable covers, even over interliners, can be just as dangerous? Once burning, the covers can overcome fire-retardant material and, more important, become a fire point for other materials such as curtains and carpets.
Is it right that the regulations will allow, without hindrance, non-fire-retardant foam to be made for export? Secondly, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that he will overcome opposition to the regulations, not just in the EEC, but as they will be affected by the completion of the single European market in 1992? Thirdly, does he agree that we need a national programme to encourage smoke detectors in the home, including the amendment of building regulations to enforce installation in new buildings and in multi-occupation homes, where many of the worse fires occur? Fourthly, does he accept that the trading standards officers who will have to enforce the new regulations must have adequate resources to allow them to do so? Is not that absolutely central to the enforcement of the regulations?
Each year 700 deaths and 7,500 injuries are caused by home fires. Does the Minister realise that the proposals

will have a huge impact on that carnage only if the Government learn from their past mistakes, remove themselves from the pockets of vested interests in the trade and put themselves in the hands of consumers?

Mr. Butcher: There has been a very intensive and comprehensive consultation period, during which we listened especially to the fire safety officers and those who will be concerned with enforcement of the regulations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that one measure in the regulations will henceforth be known as the "Graham compromise"—it relates to second-hand furniture.
I shall restate the context in which the regulations have been brought forward. Even before them, Britain had the most rigorous furniture fire regulations regime in Western Europe. The regulations will make that even more rigorous. It is around that position that the House has coalesced during the past four or five months.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said about covers, but some materials are difficult to make match resistant without destroying their qualities. We are stipulating that they can be used over interliners that comply with the very strict ignition source 5 as an alternative to compliance. The effect is still rigorous, but the consumers will have a choice. That is a logical and sensible approach. The exemption is not available to the broad range of mainly synthetic fibres, and in general the predominantly natural fibres burn with less heat than synthetics.
I am satisfied that what we are doing today is compatible with the movement towards 1992. It may take five years for the Commission to come forward with proposals and to set minimum standards. We are already ahead of western Europe, so we have a good chance of complying with any future minimum standards.
The hon. Gentleman will know that smoke detectors are a first issue matter not for me, but for the Home Secretary. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am closely monitoring the experiments in the Granada and Tyne-Tees television areas. If he finds this an agreeable response, I shall consider using my safety campaigns under "Think Safety First", and include in them an element that could raise awareness of safety in the home.
We have consulted the trading standard officers and I think they will welcome the clarity of the regulations, because clarity makes life much easier for them.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. He did not refer to the trade's reaction to his proposals, although there has been a tremendous amount of lobbying by the trade. Will he consider discussing the regulations with our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, because there are equal dangers on public service vehicles, especially aircraft and trains?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend will be aware that a number of companies are already making strong efforts to comply with what they anticipated would be incorporated in today's statement. There has been a positive reaction. We have stuck to the timetable announced in January and I have provided an extra four months of grace for the manufacturing of furniture to the new foam requirements. On balance, that is about right. I have spoken at length


with the manufacturers and I think that they can cope with the requirements without the viability of the industry being called into question.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The House welcomes the Government's proposals. However, does the Minister accept that the exemptions and the proposal to categorise materials rather than to provide a safety test for the finished article will cause great concern? Many of those involved in safety believe that people are looking for certification that the combination of fabric and material in a piece of furniture will be safe. Will the Minister ensure that during the transition stage for both new and second-hand furniture, the regulations provide for clear labelling so, that people know whether they are buying furniture approved under the new regulations?
I support the representations—although not made to his Department—for the wider installation of smoke detectors. I am sure that that would make a major contribution to preventing death, because it would allow people to get out before the effects of the smoke became a fait accompli.

Mr. Butcher: The whole thrust of the argument behind the regulations is how, in practical terms, we deliver a much safer range of furniture to domestic users. If the hon. Gentleman examines carefully the import of what we are saying today, he will see that even the so-called concessions have been made in a way that provides an incentive for those dealing in second-hand furniture, such as caravans or garden furniture, to move to much safer items. The old tests—the cigarette tests—still apply to those materials that are exempt. Where there is a combination of materials, we are still talking about the ignition source 5 test for the barrier cloth which must be placed under those materials which manage to get on the exemption list.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the speed and effectiveness with which he has moved on this issue? I have no intention of following the churlish reception of his statement by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), but I would like clarification on three points.
First, I greatly welcome the decision on second-hand furniture, but is there a way in which advertisement regulations can be used to ensure that such furniture is appropriately described in the period when it does not contain non-inflammable material?
Secondly, is it not a fact that the cloth being used will significantly delay flammability, so there is a significant improvement in safety as a result of my hon. Friend's consequential decision on the use of interlining cloth?
Thirdly, all fire services have been lobbying hard on this matter, but it is not sufficient for my hon. Friend to say that smoke detectors are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, which, indeed, they are. There could surely be a more positive interdepartmental effort to apply smoke detectors.

Mr. Butcher: I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are closely engaged in monitoring the present smoke detector awareness campaigns. I said earlier that I had a legitimate interest given my responsibilities for safety in the home generally. On examination of the regulations, my hon. Friend may note that, for example, the caravan industry is

prepared voluntarily to put smoke detectors in secondhand caravans when they come back onto the market, and I welcome that. It would be misleading advertising for a dealer to specify that an item that he was selling satisfied the requirements if it did not. On balance, the interplay between second-hand sales through dealers and private sales between individuals is about right.

Mr. Ian McCartney: First, I welcome the Government's decisions on the implementation date and on second-hand furniture, about which I introduced a ten-minute Bill. However, I am worried about the concessions being given to a small number of fabric manufacturers who have been given the potential to drive a coach and horses through the regulations, and it is important that the Minister should answer a number of technical questions. [Interruption.]
If the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) listened to someone who knows something about fire safety, he might stop making ignorant remarks. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are trying to prevent several hundred deaths a year, and I am trying to be positive, not to attack the Minister personally.
Will ignition source 5 tests relate to combustion modified high resistance foam or standard polyurethane foam testing methods? It is important that the barrier test be done under the standard polyurethane foam test and not under the combustion modified test which is already connected to the ignition source 5 test which would therefore be unable to establish whether the combinations were safe.
Secondly, it is important for the Minister to understand that unless those combinations are proved to be safe, he is simply transferring the secondary source of fire from the filling to the curtains, carpets and other materials in the bedroom or living room. It is essential that regulations cut down not only fires caused by foam-filled furniture, but the secondary causes of fire. If we allow ignitable covers in any circumstances, the fires will continue; they will not ignite the foam but they will ignite other items such as curtains and carpets and the death rate will continue. The Minister should state clearly that such materials will be tested.

Mr. Butcher: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution to the debate over a long period. I also recognise that he has been responsible for bringing a number of fire safety commentators to my office, and some positive suggestions were made during those conversations.
I hope that the House will not get the matter of materials out of context. We have not made a major and massive concession, because we are talking about materials such as printed cotton, which includes chintz, and about linen and wool. As I said earlier, in general, such predominantly natural fibres burn with less heat than synthetics, but they still have to be stretched over an ignition source 5 barrier material, and that is a rigorous requirement. The ignition source 2 test for non-foam fillings is also appropriate because those non-foam fillings burn with different propensities and my advice is that that test is suitable for those other mixtures.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: The House and many companies in Britain concerned with the industry will welcome my hon. Friend's statement, because, as he knows, there has been much uncertainty recently. However, many companies in Britain already


produce upholstery fabrics that are way ahead of the Minister's regulations and are ready at this moment to put their fabrics in front of blow torches at high temperatures in the knowledge that no flame will go through them. If the Minister would like to see that experiment, as he has said in the past that he would, that can be arranged.
Previous uncertainty will now be allayed a little. However, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the exceptions that he has made will be monitored closely since we do not want to see another aeroplane disaster, such as the one in Manchester, after the new regulations have been laid?

Mr. Butcher: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that she seeks. When we lay the regulations, there will be a list of materials in the category in question, but, of course, we shall continue to monitor the matter. My hon. Friend has vividly illustrated the strong clashes of opinion that exist on this issue. I do not want the regulations to be rigid or inflexible, so when the list is produced we shall monitor it and we shall take advantage of any technological breakthroughs that permit us to amend it.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an important day for Irish Members, so may we have brief questions, please? There will be a debate which will allow hon. Members to make longer contributions.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does the Minister accept that many domestic British manufacturers have put a great deal of time, energy and investment into perfecting flame-resistant fabrics? Will not his exemptions undermine their work if they are too wide? Is it true that many of the manufacturers of the materials that he says may be exempt are based outside this country, and that there is a particular problem with imported material? Is not one of the reasons for his exemptions a desire to satisfy importers? Surely he should be putting safety first and supporting manufacturers who have invested so much in flame-resistant materials, especially as many of them are located in areas of high unemployment.
Will the Minister clarify the position on stretch-fabric material makers, who have asked for an exemption in certain circumstances if the stretch fabrics are to be used as secondary covering?

Mr. Butcher: I agree with the hon. Lady that the suppliers of foam and materials have made great efforts, and I pay tribute to them for that.
As for whether the exemptions are too wide, as I have just told my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), the list of exempted materials will be reviewed periodically, which is as it should be.
Imports will have to comply. Nothing in my statement started from a consideration of importers—that was the least of my considerations.
Stretch covers are less of a potential contributory hazard than loose covers, because of their essential construction in respect of fibre type, weight, and use in stretch form, but they will have to meet a match-resistance requirement when tested over combustion-modified foam. I hope that is helpful.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his realistic statement. He has clearly listened to the industries that are involved in furniture and has appreciated the problems of employment, of investment and of the industries, which are considerable exporters from this country.
Does my hon. Friend accept that his statement makes no concession to the furniture fabric manufacturers? I refer particularly to the ad hoc committee of 21 on the timing of the implementation of these regulations.
Is my hon. Friend prepared to make any concession to fabric manufacturers for the huge additional costs that they are likely to incur in meeting the regulations, which he will lay before the House in the near future?
Will my hon. Friend confirm that he has received a letter from the European Commission requesting more time for the industry to meet the proposed requirements that he has announced?
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for listening to so many members of the industry who are concerned about employment, investment and the future of manufacturing industry.

Mr. Butcher: I am afraid I cannot offer my hon. Friend any hope that the timing will be changed. I am anxious to comply with the timetable that was first announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Corporate Affairs. That is what the House expected of me and that is what it is my intention to deliver.
Industry can live with this regime. The balance is about right. There is no erosion of safety requirements, which the whole House has requested vigorously for some time.
I do not believe that concessions to the manufacturers are in order. Some manufacturers of furniture are already marketing furniture which they claim in their promotional material will comply with the new requirements.
I thank my hon. Friend for the vigorous way in which he has pursued his interest in this issue. I hope that he will agree that the formula that has been brought forward is primarily concerned with safety, as all these measures are. But in the case of safer fabrics, they allow some flexibility while still including a rigorous test for the interliner.

Mr. Jim Callaghan: I congratulate the Minister on his statement, but may I point out that on 1 January I invited him to try to evaluate the claims of British Vitafoam, an international rubber company based in my constituency, for its research and development into fire-resistant material? Is he aware that in the past month the Member of the European Parliament for the area, Michael Hindley, and myself were invited by the directors of that company to see for ourselves the research and development that it had achieved in these projects?
May I invite the Minister, in the light of what we have seen, to visit the factory to see for himself exactly what the firm has done? If he cannot come personally, will he ask the directors to send him the video that they have produced on their research and development?

Mr. Butcher: I should like to respond positively to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He could make a beginning by bringing two or three of the company's representatives to my office for an initial presentation, to which I should gladly agree.

Mr. Irvine Patnick: Is my hon. Friend aware of the shortage of manufacturers who make the flame-proofing treatment used on fabrics, and that there is a need for more companies to do that work? Is he aware of the difficulties with man-made fabrics, which appear to present a larger problem than the natural materials that are used? What steps is he taking to ensure that firms look into flame-proofing and do something about man-made fibres?

Mr. Butcher: Regulations sometimes change market conditions, and that will happen as a result of this announcement. I believe that companies will react and develop products and capabilities. There are real pressures and they must be coped with. I am satisfied that most companies that are affected will act.
There is no doubt that the regulations bite hard on synthetic fibres. I am in no mood to change one semi-colon of the parts of the regulations that deal with them, as they have more dangerous properties than some natural fibres.

Mr. Keith Bradley: The Minister spoke of the need for clarification of the regulations for trading standards officers. What procedures should such officers adopt to ensure that pieces of household furniture have been fitted with an interliner or barrier cloth underneath one of the exempted fabrics?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman has asked me to project working practices, but all I can say is that we shall work closely with those who are responsible for enforcement, as we have done throughout the consultation period. I pay tribute to them for the way in which they have deployed their arguments with my officials.
I shall carefully examine what the hon. Gentleman said. If the problem that he anticipates arises, I shall return to him with my proposals.

Mr. Iain Mills: I offer my hon. Friend congratulations on good regulations; it is excellent that second-hand furniture has been brought in. Will he consider more resources for trading standards officers to implement the regulations?

Mr. Butcher: I am willing to consider anything, within reason. I recently met representatives of trading standards officers. They told me that their work load was growing ever heavier. They therefore legitimately asked me about resources. The regulations are clear and should not be difficult to enforce, but I am continually examining the resources that are available to these agencies.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Like other hon. Members, I warmly welcome these regulations for safety in the home. Does the Minister intend the regulations to apply to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Butcher: I see no reason why Northern Ireland should be exempt. Benign measures such as this are often to be welcomed in Northern lreland—[Interruption.] I suspect that not many measures that are unanimously believed to be benign can be announced, but I hope that there is unanimity in this case. I want the regulations to be applied in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Gary Waller: As regards material covers, does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of concern that work done by trading standards officers shows that fibre-content regulations are widely flouted,

particularly in imports? As that creates difficulties for consumers who are anxious to buy safe materials to cover existing furniture, will my hon. Friend emphasise his commitment to using existing powers on fibre-content safety, particularly at the point of entry to this country, in the interests of consumers who are concerned for their safety and that of their families?

Mr. Butcher: I think that there is already awareness in Europe of the import of these regulations, and we shall do our utmost to see that European manufacturers have no excuse for being ignorant of these requirements. Imports will have to comply. My hon. Friend mentioned covers. We are talking about a match test that will apply to both loose covers and covers that come already fitted to the furniture.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall not join in the congratulations to the Minister or in his self-congratulations, because the Government have been dragged to this position because of the deaths earlier this year that aroused such anger in all parts of the House and in the nation. He has not addressed himself to two important questions. One was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) who asked whether the test on interliners would be carried out using standard foam. If they are not carried out in that way they will be worthless.
The second question was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) who asked about the way in which trading standard officers would know about interliners in imported furniture. That is not a trivial matter of detail but is fundamental and the Minister should have had the answer when he came to the Dispatch Box. Will he make sure that he gives a proper answer because this is a potential loophole, makes total nonsense of the exemption and will result in even more deaths?

Mr. Butcher: We should not take admonitions or a lecture from the hon. Gentleman about our care on this matter of safety in the home.

Mr. Lloyd: The Minister should.

Mr. Butcher: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me finish. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not aware of such matters as the "Think Safety First" campaign or of the many measures that come out of my Department to raise consumer awareness on safety matters. Something new is happening almost monthly.
I cannot agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We were not dragged to make these regulations. We are building on an already very vigorous fire safety regime. Interliners will be tested over combustion modified foam. If I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's question or those of his hon. Friends, I will clarify the matter. I am satisfied on the matter of the use of interlinings that this is an appropriate way to bring true safety to furniture that is built using exempted materials.

Mr. Alistair Burt: May I also warmly welcome what my hon. Friend has done? It is an object lesson on what can be done when the mind is put to it. I also pay tribute to the work of Chief Assistant Fire Officer Bob Graham, who has been instrumental in terms of some of the changes that are coming through. May I commend


the further use of smoke detectors and suggest that the Minister takes my ten-minute Bill as a model for further progress? Smoke detectors save lives now, whereas
Secondly, I should like to raise a matter that has inadvertently been missed by hon. Members who are anxious about this issue. Too many fires are still caused through sheer, straightforward carelessness, drink and cigarettes. Any campaign about fire awareness should not only raise technical aspects and smoke detectors but make people aware that their own carelessness can cost lives.

Mr. Butcher: I think that I have already acknowledged the great help that Mr. Bob Graham, my hon. Friend's friend, has been to the debate. I hear loudly and clearly what my hon. Friend says about smoke detectors. That has come through as a strong theme in the debate. Of course prevention is the best and first policy, but we have to reinforce prevention with regulations, such as those that we propose, understandable public concern is aroused over deaths caused by noxious fumes from the sort of substances that we are discussing. It is a two-level attack—prevention and regulation. I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend has done in his ten-minute Bill. He will not mind if I say again that in the first instance it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I am sure that the signals are coming over loud and clear.

Mr. Graham Allen: The Minister may be aware that I and the Nottinghamshire fire prevention panel and fire officers in Nottinghamshire have written to the Government requesting a serious national programme for smoke detectors in homes—both in new-build local authority housing and in new private developments. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that that is somebody else's responsibility. Will he press the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for the Environment to bring forward proposals and support them wholeheartedly? Secondly, will he also ensure that cotton ignitable covers are no longer exempted under these regulations? Such exemptions mean that more people will die. How many more must die before the Government are dragged kicking and screaming to the Dispatch Box to announce measures in both those areas?

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman went over the top in his last observations. I and my officials have been painstaking in listening to many representations on this issue from all parts of the House. The paramount consideration has been safety. We have produced a formula that delivers on the safety requirements and does not, as it could have done, call into question the viability of the furniture industry. It will have to deal with these pressures. I believe that it can and, as I said earlier, I think that the balance is about right.
I spoke earlier about linens and natural materials and said clearly that, in general, predominately natural fibres burn with less heat than synthetics. That seems to be the major or almost the only issue on which the Opposition are homing in. When one decodes their comments one sees that they are probably—dare I say it—content with the import of what we are doing.

Mr. James Cran: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his statement, and especially on what he said about the caravan industry which will have heaved a sigh

of relief at what he had to say about the possible effects of the draft regulations on the new and used caravan markets. So that I may confirm my understanding, will he confirm the nature of the exemption for second-hand caravans because, as I think he knows, a slowdown in second-hand sales has a detrimental effect on new sales?

Mr. Butcher: Second-hand caravans will be excluded, because inclusion would mean that traders would have to change the built-in furniture at a cost disproportionate to the value of the caravan itself. That would force business into private or pseudo-private sales which would escape important safety checks that the majority of caravan dealers are obliged to carry out by virtue of their membership of the National Caravan Council. My hon. Friend will know that those safety checks on important matters such as gas and electricity are undertaken by dealers in second-hand caravans. Because of the importance of those and other tests, we would not want to do anything that diverted caravans out of that route.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Could we hark back to the question put by my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney)? They ought to be added to Mr. Speaker's list of those Back Benchers who altered events by their actions. The Minister has a PPS and nine expert civil servants in the Box. Before the end of questions on this statement, could he get an answer to the issue about testing of standard polyurethane foam? This is a crucial matter.

Mr. Butcher: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Before I agreed to make the statement I gave instructions to the Box that I wanted no pieces of paper fluttering along the Bench. I do not know whether the people in the Box are complying with that regulation. We came to the view that for covering fabric and foam, this would be an inappropriate test for the great majority of furniture which usually contains other filling materials. I now clearly understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I shall come back to it later.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I thank my hon. Friend for listening to representations. Will he bear in mind the interest being shown by overseas regulatory agencies in the British-manufactured Firesafe carbon fibre and wool blocking agent, which has considerable advantages not only in terms of safety but of utility and economy?

Mr. Butcher: Yes, I shall certainly consider that.

Mr. James Couchman: I have not heard my hon. Friend mention the reupholstery trade, which is carried out by small traders—often single traders. How will he bring the new regulations to their attention and how will the new regulations affect them? Upholsterers who deal with my trade—hotel and catering—are concerned that they will not have ready access to the new materials, which may be in short supply because the major manufacturers will take up most of what is available in the early stages.

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend will have heard my earlier comments about the pre-1950 and post-1950 regimes. My major concern is foam, which is the most dangerous modern development that we seek to tackle in the proposals.
We are prepared to test mixtures of materials, such as those used in reupholstery, to ignition source 2 because we believe that the properties of non-foam when it burns are different, so that test is more relevant.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the regulations. In his statement, he referred to miscellaneous matters, including cushions. Does he intend to include cushion covers sold separately from cushions or does he intend to include cushion covers, which are normally upholstered material of the same type as curtains, in the curtain regulations that his Department is considering?

Mr. Butcher: There will be no requirement for the outer decorative cover of cushions, but the pillow or cushion interior will be required to pass ignition source 2. For that test, the fillings may be tested separately or in combination with an interliner or primary cover. Curtain material, even used over cushions, will not be covered.

Mr. Richard Holt: I am a parliamentary spokesman for the furniture manufacturers, and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his consideration in the consultation period. I also thank his officials for working closely with the furniture manufacturing industry. That has resulted in the date for implementation being brought forward. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that the industry is very grateful to the Government for bringing in the regulations at the first opportunity when foams of a fire-resistant nature were available.
The industry has one concern; my hon. Friend did not make one point quite clear. If the regulations are not acceptable within the European Community in the future, will we have to go back a pace for the sake of harmonisation? Will he make it clear that the investment, work and research that the industry has put into reaching these conclusions will not be hammered on the head at some future date in Brussels?

Mr. Butcher: The well-managed and more positive firms in the industry will see this as a marketing opportunity. There are already signs of a positive reaction in anticipation of the regulations.
The European Commission has not entered a formal objection to the draft regulations, but it has requested us to allow equivalent European standards to be used where available. It has also requested that we take account of comments made by member states. We already have the most rigorous regime in Europe. If the Commission seeks a European consensus on minimum requirements, we are well placed to meet those requirements.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Does my hon. Friend accept that the recognition that he has given that the new measures will impose costs on the industry and the public is important and that his acknowledgement that the time scale is short is also crucial? Will he continue—as he has done since he took over responsibility—to maintain close contact with the industry and to take account of technical developments and possibilities and of the concern that still exists about the attractiveness, or lack of it, of the new materials that meet the standards? Finally, and very importantly, will he ensure that the new standards that are to be set for British domestic furniture manufacturers will also be rigorously applied to imported furniture?

Mr. Butcher: There will be equal vigilance to ensure that imports comply with the regulations. I shall, of course, maintain close contact with the industry.
In response to the earlier question raised by the hon. Members for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—the only question that I have not been able to answer—fabrics will be tested over standard foam because that will distinguish better between acceptable and non-acceptable materials.

Housing (Scotland)

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A statement was made to the House on 29 March by the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland. That statement affected 800,000 tenants in Scotland who fear the forcible transfer of their tenancies to speculative landlords. He said:
No solution will be forced on anyone against his or her will."—[Official Report, 29 March 1988; Vol. 130, c. 1003.]
Earlier this week, however, he said of tenants:
it is possible that a minority might have to transfer against their will."—[Official Report, 27 June 1988; Vol. 136, c. 138–9.]
In view of the fear and alarm that that is causing among Scotland's tenants in the council sector, tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association and other public sector tenants, there is an urgent requirement for the Government to make their position crystal clear. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, will use your influence and permit the Minister to make a statement today.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should genuinely like to answer the hon. Gentleman's point. There has been no reduction in secure tenants' rights and no shift in Government policy on this matter.
The remarks to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I made during the Commons stages of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, related to the transfer of SSHA tenants to Scottish Homes and to the tenants' choice provisions in part III of that Bill. There is absolutely no question of the Government retreating from the commitments that they gave to tenants on this matter. SSHA tenants will not lose any rights on transfer to Scottish Homes and no tenant will be forced to change to another landlord under the tenants' choice provisions against his or her will.
My remarks during the Report stage of the Housing Bill on Monday night related solely to large-scale voluntary disposals by local authorities. It has always been the case that public sector landlords can dispose of stock to another landlord provided that they have the consent of the Secretary of State, and it has always been possible that

some tenants might be transferred against their will. That is one reason why we consider it so important that the Secretary of State should have the ability to examine very closely every possible voluntary request from a local authority to dispose of stock. Consequently, we took the opportunity to make absolutely clear the considerations to which the Secretary of State would have regard in examining voluntary applications for disposals, and the protection of tenants will, of course, be a central consideration.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this will not develop into a debate. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) sought clarification.

Mr. John Maxton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister, but find it astonishing that he should have made a statement in this way. Surely it would have been better for the Minister or the Secretary of State—who seems to prefer cavorting round Scotland on photo opportunities to answering Scottish questions—had applied to you to make a statement.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister did not ask to make a statement at all. It was on a point of order.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister has made a statement, which we now cannot question.

Mr. Michael Fallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises directly from Scottish questions. It is your normal practice, quite rightly and fairly, to give preference to hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies before calling those who take an interest in Scottish affairs but who represent constituencies in England and elsewhere. I wonder whether you will be prepared to vary that practice on occasion. This afternoon, no fewer than 21 Scottish Labour Members failed to turn up—a truancy rate of 40 per cent. Alternatively, perhaps Scottish questions could be rearranged for a day on which Scottish Labour Members are more likely to show up.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for who turns up.

Points of Order

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw to your attention the conduct of a Conservative Member earlier today. When I asked a question in my Scottish accent during Scottish Question Time, this hon. Member had the effrontery to shout, "Speak in English." Such conduct does nothing for what is supposed to be a unitary Parliament. If hon. Members do not understand my accent, that is the least of the things that they do not understand about Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that like me, all hon. Members find the hon. Lady's accent entirely charming.

Mr. Tom Clarke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point, and you know that I would not be raising it were it not so. I attended the whole of Scottish Question Time, having tabled a question, as I normally do. I was astonished, as I think all hon. Members were, to hear the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), in a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), refer to a case in my constituency which I have been pursuing for over six months. In his remarks, the Minister——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This seems to be a continuation of Question Time. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to his point of order.

Mr. Clarke: I am seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a serious matter. When the Minister said that I had sought political asylum for this person, he gave the House the impression that I had agreed that the man should stay in Barlinnie prison for six months. I did no such thing. Can the Minister now be asked to make a statement about that?

Mr. Speaker: I was listening carefully and I heard what the Minister said. Had there been time, I would certainly have called the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) so that he could make his point.

Tenancies of Brewery Companies (Regulation)

Mr. Speaker: We come now to the presentation of a Bill. Second Reading what day?

Mr. Graham Allen: With permission of the House, now Sir.

Mr. Speaker: No; that cannot be done.

Mr. Allen: In that case, Friday 8 July.
Mr. Graham Allen, supported by Dr. David Clark, Mr. Ron Davies, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours. Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Harry Barnes, Mrs. Margaret Beckett and Mr. Frank Haynes, presented a Bill to regulate tenancies of brewery companies; and for other purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 8 July and to be printed. [Bill 178.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, Standing Order No. 93 (Public bills relating exclusively to Scotland) shall apply to proceedings on the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill with the substitution of the words 'committee of the whole House' for the words 'Scottish Standing Committee' in paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Standing Order.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Child Benefit (Forfeiture)

Mr. Barry Field: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for child benefit to be forfeited by or suspended from parents of persistent truants and vandals.
I thought that I was in grave danger of making parliamentary history by introducing the first ten-minute Bill to be filibustered.
Child benefit costs £4·6 billion every year, one tenth of the entire social security budget. Of that sum, £1·3 billion is paid to 1,790,000 families with an income in excess of £20,000 a year. That is a quarter of the entire expenditure on child benefit, and I cannot accept that collecting taxes and employing an army of civil servants to distribute this universal benefit regardless of need can be justified.
The Bill will begin the process of a long-needed reform of this ludicrous anomaly whereby we spread a little jam thinly rather than concentrating it where it is needed. This measure will establish and highlight the trinity that leads to good citizenship. It consists of: parental responsibility, a sound education and pride in the community.
The forerunner of child benefit was the family allowance, and when he introduced it, Beveridge said that it was a financial aid to parents in meeting their responsibilities and in recognition of certain responsibilities on behalf of the state. The Bill will focus attention on the need for parents to meet those responsibilities in the way in which they bring up their children. Parents and the part that they play are directly related to the way in which children grow up.
In the Home Office report published in 1985, entitled "Parental Supervision and Juvenile Delinquency", of 10 recommendations to parents, number 9 said:
Turning a blind eye to truancy and unauthorised absences is unlikely to encourage a positive attitude to school.
A recent operation by the West Midlands police, called "Operation Sweeper" returned more than 100 children to either their schools or their parents. Many of the latter were surprised that their children were playing truant, because the school had not informed them.
The Bill requires schools to notify the DHSS when children are absent from school without good cause and this will, in turn, lead to the notification of parents that continued absence could lead to the suspension or forfeiture of child benefit. The point is that parents will no longer be able to plead ignorance as to where children are or what they are up to.
The report into delinquency concluded that a particularly noticeable characteristic of the parents of many of the delinquents was carelessness or laxity in matters of supervision. It found that these parents were less concerned than others to watch over, or know about, their children's doings, their whereabouts or their companions. They failed to enforce or to formulate fixed rules about such things as punctuality, manners, bed time, television viewing or tidying-up. The West Midlands police operation picked up children as young as eight and I cannot and will not accept that it is impossible to regulate the life and actions of children so young.
A recent survey of 10,000 children by the National Housing and Town Planning Council suggests that up to 100,000 schoolchildren are missing school every day to play fruit machines. Later this week, we shall see the

publication of the Home Office report on amusement machine dependency and delinquency. My Bill will bring to light those parents who are failing to ensure their children's regular attendance at school.
The education authorities are responsible for dealing with truancy and because of this, no national statistics are available. Through my introduction of the Bill, I have been led to conclude that schools are not doing enough to notify parents when their children are absent. Parents have expressed to me surprise and disquiet that they have not been notified, and there is undoubtedly a direct relationship between truancy and crime. During the Birmingham operation, reported crime fell from 82 incidents in April to 46 in May. Children will listen to their parents and copy their example.
A survey commissioned by Blyth Valley council for the Northumberland police and the Keep Britain Tidy Group, found that children blamed their parents for not being strict enough. Of the 2,500 children interviewed, 52 per cent. replied that they would listen to their parents, and only 50 per cent. said that they would listen to the police. Some 40 per cent. said that they would listen to pop stars and only 8 per cent. said that they would listen to the advice of youth club leaders. That was 1 per cent. less than those who would listen to Church leaders or politicians. Parents have power, if only we could encourage them to exercise it.
The final part of this measure would require magistrates to notify the Department of Health and Social Services of children convicted or cautioned for acts of vandalism. Vandalism is estimated to cost the country up to £30 million a year and cleaning up graffiti is costing £23 for every man, woman and child. Let no one suggest that these are problems of poverty. Spray cans of paint, that most popular tool for the graffiti gorilla, cost money, as do the fish and chip papers and Coca-Cola cans that litter the streets, and the over-loud transitor radios. All this behaviour is a manifestation of anti-social behaviour. It is the product of an affluent society in which children are all too often, to use the modern phrase, allowed to do their own thing.
Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the London conference on vandalism revealed that more than 4,000 vandals were aged between 10 and 13. That shows that they often start their careers at 10 or younger.
I do not propose that the money saved by my proposal will be returned to the Treasury. It will go to finance the working and administration of the measure, and to be distributed to local charities and social workers who specialise in helping children with behavioural difficulties. This would strengthen the tie between the community and the child. The current universal payment by the state is too remote.
There is little that is revoluntionary in the Bill. Since 1983, the DHSS has funded over 100 projects serving juvenile offenders to seek to provide alternatives to custody and care. Suspending child benefit, which in many cases benefits everyone except the child, will, I hope, bring the child and parent back into partnership so that we bring up better Britons for a better future for our nation.
In the 1920s, and 1940s, Eleanor Rathbone wrote "The Disinherited Family" and "The Case for Family Allowances". Her campaign led ultimately to child benefit as we know it today. She said:


Children are not simply a private luxury, they are an asset to the community.
My Bill will ensure an end to parental disinterest. It will ensure that children are an asset to the community. The Bill is not an attack on the poor because child benefit is counted as a resource for families on income support, but it is an attack on parents who fail properly to bring up their children.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 123.

Division No. 391]
[5.39 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunter, Andrew


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Janman, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mans, Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Budgen, Nicholas
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carrington, Matthew
Paice, James


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Redwood, John


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Shaw, David (Dover)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Strang, Gavin


Devlin, Tim
Watts, John


Farr, Sir John
Widdecombe, Ann


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Gorman, Mrs Teresa



Gow, Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Holt, Richard
Mr. David Evans.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cousins, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Armstrong, Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Douglas, Dick


Battle, John
Duffy, A. E. P.


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Margaret
Eastham, Ken


Beith, A. J.
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fearn, Ronald


Bidwell, Sydney
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Flannery, Martin


Blair, Tony
Foster, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Buchan, Norman
Gordon, Mildred


Caborn, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Canavan, Dennis
Haselhurst, Alan


Clelland, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)





Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hood, Jimmy
Rhodes James, Robert


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Robertson, George


Hume, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kennedy, Charles
Salmond, Alex


Kilfedder, James
Sedgemore, Brian


Kirkwood, Archy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livsey, Richard
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David


McGrady, Eddie
Strang, Gavin


McKelvey, William
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McWilliam, John
Turner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Mallon, Seamus
Wall, Pat


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wallace, James


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Wareing, Robert N.


Maxton, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Mullin, Chris



Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, William
Mr. Frank Haynes


Pike, Peter L.
and Mr. Alan Meale.


Quin, Ms Joyce

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has anyone informed you in the last few minutes that there may have to be an interruption in the Government's proceedings, because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) voted in both Division Lobbies? We want to know now what is the Government's policy on child benefit, in view of the fact that the hon. Lady voted in both Lobbies.
Are you also aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was a bit of a schemozzle when the Under-Secretary of State, having voted for the motion, was then confronted by a set of pickets in excess of six against the Tory code of practice? They tried to stop her entering the Lobby because they had captured her vote. She then proceeded to enter and vote in the other Lobby. That calls for a statement of policy, so that the House may know exactly where the Government stand on child benefits.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): It is not at all unusual to have a little schemozzle in this place. As to the Minister having voted in both Lobbies, that is not unique or without precedent.

Northern Ireland Act 1974

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Inteim Period Extension) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
This is the fourteenth time that such an order has been moved to extend further the operation of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It provides an opportunity to review the events and developments of the past year and to examine some aspects of particular concern in the coming year. I intend to speak first about the economic situation, secondly about security, and thirdly about political developments.
The House will know that the steady improvement in the British economy has been reflected by much greater buoyancy this year in Northern Ireland. We can take some encouragement from the significant fall in unemployment. There are about 10,000 fewer unemployed than there were when we met to debate the order last year, and employment, and within that manufacturing employment, have both increased. To all those who have been in contact with them, there is much greater buoyancy and activity in both the Irish Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit than there was two or three years ago, because of the number of active inquiries being pursued.
Significantly, the IDB is dealing substantially less with rescue cases and maintaining jobs and more with the creation of additional new jobs. I think of the headlines of the past few months and of the announcements that there have been about further investment and expansion. I know some of the names by heart; Herdmans, Moy Park, Norbrook Laboratories, Ormeau, Glen Electric, Du Pont, STC and a number of others, which include two major carpet investments. They are all very encouraging in the development of the Northern Ireland economy.
We are conscious that while there has been that improvement, the level of unemployment remains unacceptably high throughout Northern Ireland and appallingly high in some parts of the Province. We still have a long way to go, and I recognise that, although I can point to a much happier prospect across the breadth of a wide range of industries in Northern Ireland—and the fact that it is much more diversified than it was is encouraging in itself—in some of the largest engineering companies—particularly in Belfast—unemployment remains a matter of continuing concern. The Northern Ireland Economic Council drew attention in its report to some of the problems.
At the same time, the skill and resilience of Northern Ireland industry and commerce has been encouraging, even against the background of difficulty in some major firms. The British economy is now into its eighth successive year of growth and we now see all the signs of economic improvement. In the south-east, there are shortages of skilled labour and of accommodation for workers and management, which make Northern Ireland an increasingly attractive location.
My own view is that Northern Ireland now has the best opportunity it may ever have had for attracting new investment into the Province. I believe that I speak regardless of party and of political attitudes to other

matters, and for every hon. Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency and for every Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, when I say that we have a total commitment to achieving whatever improvements we can in investment and employment in the Province.

Sir John Farr: Before leaving that very important subject, can my right hon. Friend say whether he will be able to respond favourably to the opportunity that has presented itself for building the largest passenger ship in the world in Belfast? If that opportunity can be seized, it will transform the whole of Ulster's economy.

Mr. King: That project is of the greatest interest and if it can be achieved for Northern Ireland on a satisfactory basis, it will be of considerable benefit not only to Harland and Wolff but also to a wide range of subcontractors throughout the Province and in the United Kingdom. However, I cannot today comment further on that matter. We are just starting to receive the detailed costings and are examining the figures. We shall make a further comment about the approach to the situation at Harland and Wolff and to that project shortly.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State will know that there has been considerable speculation in the Province, not only in the media but generally, concerning the possible privatisation of Harland and Wolff. Can he say whether he or any of his Ministers has had talks recently with any shipowner or potential shipyard purchaser, and whether that is the direction of Government policy on Harland and Wolff? Can he also say whether he would make subject to the purchase of Harland and Wolff the giving of finance to Ravi Tikkoo for the Ultimate Dream?

Mr. King: I have referred rather obliquely to that important aspect, and I understand why the hon. Gentleman has pressed me to be a little clearer. I hope that we will be able to say something about our approach very shortly, possibly in the next couple of days. I can say now that we have made it clear, as it is Government policy, that we are seriously interested in any possibilities for privatisation. We believe philosophically that it is the right way to proceed, and we are also interested in it as a possible way forward for Harland and Wolff. The hon. Gentleman knows very well the considerations that would have to arise and the problems that would have to be tackled.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend also include Short Brothers in any statement that he makes about privatisation?

Mr. King: I shall not do so immediately, but Northern Ireland Questions are first in tomorrow's business, and the matter may arise then.
This better economic prospect—this chance to see at last a real future for many young people in the Province, who may have thought not long ago that they had little prospect of employment and a future—is there. The risk that is posed to it, however, is all too clear. We now face a possible threat from the recent terrorist outrages to any further investment that we might seek to achieve. This puts into the starkest relief the point that if terrorism continues—if those who pretend to be concerned about employment and a better future for young people continue their terrorist outrages—they will destroy the future that those


young people might be justified in expecting. That has always been of concern to us, but it is of particular concern now.

Mr. David Alton: Before the Secretary of State leaves the subject of the economy in Northern Ireland, may I look forward to his White Paper on fair employment, to be published on Friday? Does he not accept that in the context of 18 per cent. unemployment in the Province, where unemployment is two and a half times higher among young Catholics than among young Protestants, the timetable that he has set is probably not ambitious enough? Will he tell the House how long he thinks it will be before that ratio changes?

Mr. King: In the interest of time, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me. We have a full day's debate on the subject on Friday, and today's debate has been appallingly truncated by all the statements.
Whatever policies there may be to seek to end discrimination and provide more opportunities and more fairness, those policies all depend on the creation of more jobs. That is at the heart of them, and it is why in my time as Secretary of State I have laid such emphasis and worked so hard on the economic aspect, trying to get more jobs into Northern Ireland. The skills, opportunities, talents and facilities are there; it only takes persuasion, in a sense, along with an understanding of the realities of life in the Province and, above all, a major reduction in terrorist activity.
I do not wish to dwell too much on the statistics for the deaths and apalling injuries that have occurred, awful as they are. But in all the years of violence in the Province, the past year has been marked by the peculiar awfulness of some of the atrocities that have occurred. It has also been marked by the clearest confirmation that the terrorists now have no inhibitions about the targets that they are prepared to attack, or the consequences of their attacks. Considering the events that in the past year have been considered perfectly acceptable occasions for the committing of atrocities—a Remembrance day parade, two funerals, a charity marathon and now a school bus run—that shows more clearly than anything that could be said that there is no longer any inhibition or restraint, but an acceptance of casualties wherever they may occur.
The blind hatred for one school bus driver that made terrorists willing to cause death and suffering to any of those children—Protestant and Catholic as they were—beggars description. I do not believe that we have yet heard one of those nauseating excuses such as the claim that someone else detonated the bomb at Enniskillen. The truth is that no excuse can justify what happened yesterday, or any other atrocity. If there was some malfunction of the detonation device—or whatever other nauseating excuse may be given for yesterday's incident—the fact remains that anyone who plants explosives on a school bus, unless he is mentally deficient, knows perfectly well that there is a risk that children may be killed or maimed.
From the events of the past year, we see beneath the balaclava the true and evil face of those who seek to take power in Ireland. They are striving to reach their objective over the bodies of their fellow citizens, wading through the blood of grievously injured children. Those events are the clearest possible reinforcement for the determination that we need to ensure that the men of violence shall not win.
Our prayers must now be for Gillian Latimer, who at this moment is fighting for her life in the royal Victoria hospital.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has now come for him to take steps to keep from the council chambers of Northern Ireland the godfathers of the murderers? Does he not realise that Unionists find it very difficult to have to sit in a council chamber with those who will not even rise to their feet to express their sympathy, and who support and try to justify what happened in that school bus yesterday? Does not the right hon. Gentleman also think that the Unionist people are right in their contention that the SDLP should now cease talking to the representatives of Sinn Fein?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman knows that I have made absolutely clear my understanding of the deep feeling of Unionists about having to sit in council chambers with people who behave in the way that he has described, and who support and subscribe to the use of violence. The truth is that there is no clean or selective use of violence. The sadness of the awful injuries suffered by Gillian Latimer is that that is what will happen if people go out with guns and bombs and place them wherever their targets may be. In many cases. inevitably, those will he the consequences.
I am very sympathetic to the point made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) about people who support the use of violence sitting on councils. In answer to the second part of his question, I am extremely concerned that Sinn Fein, which is so totally identified with the IRA, should not, in any talks which may be taking place, on which I have made my views absolutely clear, be allowed somehow to dictate the terms in Northern Ireland, and become the obstacle to sensible, constructive discussion between the democratic constitutional parties.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has been very courteous to the House. Since the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned the attitude of the SDLP, perhaps one could say a word of commendation to the SDLP councillors in Fermanagh who voted with the Unionists to unseat the Sinn Fein chairman of the council because he had refused to condemn the Enniskillen atrocities.

Mr. King: We noted that. One of the encouraging developments in the last council elections—I am sorry to say that it was not universal, as there were one or two appointments about which I have considerable reservations—was that there was a willingness to recognise that another constitutional party that had a point of view was in the council chamber, and a recognition that senior posts such as the mayor or the chairman could be held by different parties. That development gave many people who care about Northern Ireland real encouragement.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. So that we may have a total view of the situation in councils, will the Secretary of State confirm that in Newry and Mourne council Sinn Fein is in an unholy alliance with members of the DUP


and the Official Unionist party in opposition to the party which I represent, and that that unholy alliance has existed for the past four years?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I am not sure how these matters relate to the motion before the House. We should direct our attention more closely to the motion.

Mr. King: I shall not respond to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon).

Rev. William McCrea: rose——

Mr. King: I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) wishes to cite another council where there would be very strong reservations about the decision that was taken. I said that in certain councils I welcome the development of recognition by one party that there was another party in the council chamber.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: With great respect, in fairness to the House I must make progress.
As the House knows we are facing a serious situation on the security front. Into the hands of evil men—and there are evil men on both extremes in Northern Ireland—have come additional sources of weapons, which, in certain respects, have a capability well in excess of that held by terrorists in previous years. We know that the terrorists are determined to intensify their campaign.
Perhaps against that background we recognise best the enormous debt we owe to the courage, skill and professionalism of the security forces. In the past year there have been some absolutely appalling and tragic incidents in Northern Ireland, but in many cases they could have been very much worse and a number of dangerous incidents have been prevented by the skill, intelligence, ability and courage of the security forces.
We have the skills to defeat the terrorists. Those skills must be deployed within Northern Ireland, but we need the fullest support and co-operation from the Republic. It is a matter of the greatest importance that those arms shipments that we believe are in the Republic of Ireland now, and that include certain additional elements that could cause great suffering, are recovered at the earliest opportunity. I reaffirm the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Taoiseach yesterday and the commitment to the very closest co-operation in this field. I particularly welcome the new appointments and the reorganisation in the Garda, which I hope will be helpful in that respect.
As for our own security efforts, in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been extremely active, we are seeking to apply across the whole range of opportunity every weapon that civilised democratic society can bring to bear against the evil of terrorism. It involves the security forces and their professionalism and arrangements for a new brigade covering the border area, the determination to retain the additional two Army battalions in the Province, and the excellent work and close co-operation between the RUC, the RUC reserve and the UDR.
We are determined to bring every weapon to bear on the industry that supports the terror campaign and to

improve the chances of conviction. The amendment to the Criminal Justic Bill to introduce the potential for genetic fingerprinting in Northern Ireland may be very helpful in getting proper convictions, given the difficulties of obtaining evidence. Undoubtedly, public emotions aroused by the recent atrocities can be best harnessed to the support of the security forces by the new freephone—with an easily identifiable number for the confidential telephone that has proved extremely effective in increasing the flow of information and help to the security forces.
We are seeking to restrict the funds available to terrorist organisations by tackling the resources gained from smuggling, racketeering, fraud and protection rackets. We are determined to tackle from every possible aspect ways in which we can bring extra pressure to bear gradually to tighten the net around the terrorists in the interests of a better future for all people in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the House have an assurance from the Secretary of State that he himself knows on whose authority and under what authority that bug was placed in the hay yard where Michael Tighe met his death? Do we have an assurance that the Secretary of State approves of the way in which that was done?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has tabled a question to me precisely on that matter tomorrow and I shall answer it then.
While I have talked about the vigorous pursuit of effective security, we are determined to fight terrorism under the law. In the past year we have been concerned to take every step we can to help increase throughout the communities of Northern Ireland confidence in the effective and fair operation of the law. It is worth noting that since we last met we have published and made publicly available the code of conduct for the RUC. We have also established the independent Police Complaints Commission. A complaints procedure in respect of the Army is now in place and we have taken a number of steps relating to the operation of the courts in the treatment of accused persons and their rights.
One step to which I pledged myself soon after taking on my present responsibilities, was an attempt to reduce the tremendous time it took for cases to appear for trial and the considerable delays affecting people who wanted to appeal against conviction. We have made considerable improvements, but we are anxious to ensure that any other steps which help are carried through so that people get fair treatment.
Another matter has attracted considerable attention. I undertook, in my statement of 17 February, to keep the House informed about matters arising from the Stalker-Sampson inquiry in respect of matters which fall within my responsibility. The House will be aware that the Police Authority for Northern Ireland has today issued a statement on its consideration of matters arising from observations made by Mr. Sampson in connection with the Chief Constable, the deputy chief constable and Assistant Chief Constable Forbes of the RUC. It has resolved that no disciplinary proceedings should be taken in respect of those three senior officers. I shall arrange for copies of the authority's statement to be placed in the Library.
As to the other ranks, the Chief Constable of the RUC announced last week that he has now received the report from Mr. Charles Kelly, and a decision on the nature of any charges and their preferment is likely to come shortly.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).

Mr. Kevin McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman said, "charges and their preferment". Surely the burden of what the Attorney-General said is that they should be disciplinary offences and that there are no charges in the sense of criminal charges, which is how it might be misunderstood outside.

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If there is any misunderstanding, I should make it clear that, if there are any charges, this is a matter for disciplinary charges. It is certainly not one for criminal charges. As the hon. Gentleman said, that was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his statement.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to get on with my speech.

Mr. Mallon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. King: I hope that every hon. Member will have an opportunity to speak, and my hon. Friend the Minister will deal in his winding-up speech with any matters that arise. I have given way a lot.
During the debate on the order one year ago, I talked about the lack of democratic involvement of the people of Northern Ireland in the government of the Province. I also talked about the need to discuss ideas which might be helpful to get a dialogue going. I looked not just to the Unionist parties, but also to the constitutional Nationalist parties for a constructive response. I noticed that, during the debate, the hon. Member for Antrim, North acknowledged that the task would not be easy, but he pledged himself to working for a Northern Ireland
where there can be real peace, real stability and real reconciliation".—[Official Report, 7 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 215]
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke of
feeling our way forward … not engaging in any high-wire acts, but building solidly on constructive approaches and workable and realistic suggestions".—[Official Report, 7 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 253.]
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) said:
the only way in which we can build trust among ourselves is by working together to administer the place. Through working together we will build the trust that has been missing over the years and diminish the distrust and prejudice."—[Official Report, 7 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 245.]
I was encouraged by the very positive tone of those speeches. They were the starting point for me in my efforts, during the past year, to see whether we can make some progress.
I have had a number of bilateral meetings with the political parties to discuss the future government of Northern Ireland. There have been many signs of a new

approach, which the House will welcome. I sense a much greater acceptance now among the political parties of Northern Ireland of the need for political dialogue and constructive thinking about the future.
I held several meetings with Unionist leaders. Earlier this year, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and the hon. Member for Antrim, North outlined their proposals for changes in how Northern Ireland is governed. The Unionist leaders were frank that they would show how far they would go only in proper negotiations with other political parties and that our dialogue was not such a negotiation. The ideas put to me were a starting point—an earnest of the intent of Unionist parties and confirmation of their interest in moving towards devolved government.
I very much welcome the fact that Unionists have something constructive to say and that they have shown that they have ideas which could be put on the table for discussion. In the light of my exploratory talks with Unionists, and in the same spirit, I sought from the SDLP leadership a statement of their attitudes towards the government of Northern Ireland. They told me that they support devolution and are willing to talk to other constitutional parties about political progress. I look to them in the spirit of last year's debate to find ways in which to carry forward their anxiety to work with Unionists.
I should add that the Alliance party of Northern Ireland and others not represented in the House have also told me that they strongly support movement towards devolution and are ready to contribute towards wider discussions.
I noticed from the speech that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North made in Belfast yesterday that, while he supports the unification of Ireland, he recognises that the Irish Government accept, through the Anglo-Irish Agreement, that the reform of Northern Ireland should take precedence over any political ambitions.
The House will be aware that there has recently been speculation that some other way forward than devolution may be found. I do not wish to restrict the scope of future discussion, but I shall explain why I still believe that movement towards devolution is the right course. In all my talks recently, I have made clear the continuing commitment of both Governments to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which commitment was repeated yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach.
The agreement embodies certain fundamental principles which are vital to Northern Ireland's future. They include the affirmation by both Governments that the status of Northern Ireland can be changed only by consent, acceptance of the need for close security co-operation with the Irish Government in our common cause against terrorism, the need to increase confidence among the minority community in the administration of Northern Ireland affairs and support for progress towards devolution. Those are the principles to which both Governments are committed.
I have also made it clear in discussions with the political parties that I remain ready to listen to and to consider concerns about the agreement, which I know are widely felt. I have made it clear that any wider discussions between the parties should take place without preconditions—I stress that again—and that such discussions are quite separate from the workings of the agreement.
We and the Irish Government are due to review the workings of the Intergovernmental Conference later this year. A devolved settlement would have major implications for the agreement, as devolved matters would be removed from the ambit of the conference. The greater the devolution, the wider the impact.
The thrust of my discussions with the parties to date has been to seek movement to or towards devolution. It is clear from the history of the past 15 years that lasting agreement on devolution is difficult to achieve. It requires adjustments on the part of everyone. Those adjustments will not be easy to make or to make quickly. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that movement towards or to devolution would best serve the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
There are three fundamental reasons for my belief. With every year of direct rule that passes it becomes ever clearer that the elected representatives of the Province lack adequate opportunity to participate in and take responsibility for decisions about the future of Northern Ireland. A devolved legislative assembly would offer people from Northern Ireland control over local services across the Province and real authority over, for example, priorities for education, industrial development, personal social services and the environment. Those are all matters for which local elected representatives should take responsibility.
The second fundamental point is that my talks with the parties have confirmed that devolution is the form of government most likely to command widespread acceptance and support in the community. I do not underestimate the wide differences of perception nor the past difficulties in seeking to achieve devolution. The parties tell me they support the objective of devolution and I believe that they are more likely to agree on steps in that direction than any other.
One of the most important reasons for seeking movement towards devolution—the hon. Member for Foyle got to the heart of this in the quotation I gave earlier—is that two traditions have to live together in Northern Ireland. Sectarianism must be rooted out of the Province. It is no good political leaders criticising sectarianism on the streets when all too often the main political parties appear to be trapped within its confines and are not seen to be giving any leadership in working constructively together with the other tradition.
Movement towards devolution would demonstrate that leadership and would return to Northern Ireland a much greater measure of responsibility for its own affairs. I have noticed comments recently about Northern Ireland being treated as a colony and people have complained about its status as a colony. Yet those comments are made by people who have consistently refused to pursue the opportunities for much greater responsibility for the affairs of the Province.
I do not suggest that a devolved form of government will be established easily or overnight. It is probable that, initially, it may be easier to reach agreement on steps towards devolution which might provide for a greater local input to decision-making. I see the next positive step as being for the political parties to start talking about those things together with the Government. With the benefit of the bilateral exploratory discussions behind us I believe we

should now be looking for ways of quickening the pace and making further realistic and sustained progress. The next step is clearly inter-party dialogue about the future arrangements for Government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Ian Gow: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way.
I know very well that those suggestions can immediately give rise to every sort of problem and difficulty. The most amateur politician in Northern Ireland has no difficulty inventing or identifying an obstacle to any course of action. We ought to take as our text for today the remembrance that this is the 14th occasion on which the temporary provisions have been renewed. It is the 14th occasion on which we have failed to make progress because on every occasion somebody has managed to find an obstacle or a difficulty or present a reason why nobody is willing to talk.
I say to all hon. Members who will take part in this debate, we have had problems about maintaining a dialogue. We are now, I hope, going to see part of the dialogue take place. That is what the United Kingdom Parliament should make possible. We shall see now whether people wish to identify the obstacles or whether they wish to move forward and see whether there is some way in which we can make a constructive contribution.
I cannot compel agreement but I can certainly do all I can to point the way. I have had the honour of being Secretary of State for nearly three years and I hope that hon. Members will concede that I have sought to show my commitment to the Province and my admiration for the people who live there for their courage and resilience against what is often appalling provocation and trial. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland, who are my great encouragement in my work, to see whether we can point the way forward. It is what the people want and I hope that this 14th renewal debate can be the occasion on which we respond to their cry. I hope that every right hon. and hon. Member who takes part in the debate will see ways in which, instead of identifying the obstacles, they can recognise where there may be bridges to cross so that we can embark on a more constructive phase.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: For the 14th year in succession we are being asked to renew direct rule in Northern Ireland. On the previous such occasion the Secretary of State, newly reconfirmed in his position, said:
I am moving for the 13th time an interim extension order."—[Official Report, 7 July 1987; Vol. 119, c. 205.]
I interpreted that, I hope charitably, as a slip of the tongue. Perhaps, carrying his awesome responsibilities, he felt that he was moving the order for the 13th time. If the former was correct, it was the third such order. If the latter was correct, perhaps he should have thought that it was the 19th or 20th time. Perhaps that is the reason why the press have been unkindly suggesting that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) is waiting in the wings to do for Northern Ireland what he did for Liverpool—one garden festival but the basic problems left unsolved. The thought of the right hon. Member for Henley as the McClark Kent of Stormont castle boggles the imagination. I hope that we will hear no more of it.
What worries me is that there may come a time when the House is asked to renew direct rule for the 19th or 20th time. I am sure that if those who took part in the debate on 15 July 1974, when the legislation that we are renewing went through all its stages in one day, had known that they would have been extending the extension 15 years later, they would have reacted differently. The Bill went through all its stages without a Division on a point of principle. On the one Division that did occur, the Ayes were a mere 11.
It was clear at the time that the Bill was generally welcomed by the Unionists, but there were serious misgivings by the Nationalists. My then hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, now Lord Fitt, said:
I cannot pretend to welcome the Bill, coming as it does in the wake of the downfall of the Executive, the power sharing Government and the Sunningdale Agreement which I believe had the support of many people in Northern Ireland who wanted to see justice and a fair Government."—[Official Report, 15 July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 66.]
The direct provision in the Bill was incidental to its central intent, which, as hon. Members will recall, was the establishment of the constitutional convention
for the purpose of considering what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there.
After 14 years of direct rule, and knowing the lack of success of the Convention, we can only conclude that, although the people of Northern Ireland are united in their dislike of direct rule, it is at present—regrettably—the only type of government which is tolerable for most in both traditions; it is a highest common factor form of government. If that is the case, so far as I am concerned it sticks in the throat. I dislike the concept of direct rule and I am sure that most people in Northern Ireland—Unionists and Nationalists alike—regard it as second best. It is patronising, undemocratic, unaccountable, remote and inefficient, and it has gone on for too long.
It was interesting that the Secretary of State referred to some powers which could return to Northern Ireland. One is no doubt education. We are imposing on Northern Ireland an education system designed for England and Wales when every voice of popular opinion in Northern Ireland—I stress, every voice—is against the bulk of those provisions and proposals. However, what is even more interesting is that it lies within the powers of the Members of Parliament of both communities in Northern Ireland to take those provisions from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State and to decide their own future in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland.
It often seems that for Northern Ireland, legislation which is intended to be permanent proves temporary, and legislation which is intended to be temporary, distressingly, becomes too persistent. The emergency provisions legislation has been with us since 1973. The temporary provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 have been with us since and the emergency provisions of the Payments for Debt Act 1971 have been with us since. We have been renewing interim period extension orders for 14 years.
Surely it is time that everybody involved made a determined effort to get rid of all the apparatus of extraordinary legislation relating to Northern Ireland. Opposition Members would be happy if we could begin with direct rule and transfer much of what we discuss here to representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, sitting in Belfast.
Perhaps we should take a few moments to review some of the ways in which during the past year the Government have exercised the authority that was vested in them by the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The Secretary of State referred to a number of security measures as items for possible future legislation. Subject always to examination, we will give our full support to anything that can stop the godfathers: the trafficking in drugs; extortion; and the falsifying of accounts. We will support such measures, always subject to the content of the legislation and the way in which it is to be implemented.
I hope that when the Minister replies he will respond to my next point. At the time of the Private Thain matter, the general impression was that the position of prisoners held at the Secretary of State's pleasure, and especially those convicted between the ages of 18 and 21, would be carefully examined. In a recent letter to me, the Secretary of State said that he was still considering what to do about that. It would be helpful to the House if we could have some announcement on that.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will talk about economic matters, I should like to refer to some other events of the past year which the Secretary of State glossed over to some extent. It was announced in 1987 that the Secretary of State was considering the reintroduction of an oath against violence as a condition of election to local government, a requirement specifically outlawed previously by the Conservative Government in 1973.
The Government have refused to repeal the Payments for Depts Act 1971 under which, in the first three quarters of 1987, they clawed back £1,023,053 of invalidity benefit from disabled people in Northern Ireland relating to an emergency dating back to internment and Stormont legislation. In 1987, the Government also announced their intention to end single payments for social fund payments. That step will have a disproportionate effect on Northern Ireland, where unemployment and poverty are greater than in any other part of Britain.
The Government displayed an extraordinary mixture of arrogance and insensitivity in their inept and craven response to the Stalker-Sampson report. Opposition Members demanded a judicial inquiry at the time. Civil liberties organisations, such as the National Council for Civil Liberties in London, and the Committee on the Administration of Justice in Belfast, also called for a judicial inquiry, joining our demand. Now Amnesty International, an organisation which produces reports that the Government respect when they apply to the Soviet Union, Uganda or Indonesia, has called for a judicial inquiry into the disputed killings in Northern Ireland—a call which the Secretary of State has rejected.
There is also today's surprising report from the police authority which the Secretary of State glossed over quickly. That is an extraordinary and amazing situation. By a majority of one, the police authority concluded
that it was not necessary to appoint an investigating officer to enquire further into Mr. Sampson's observations",
and resolved that no disciplinary proceedings needed to be taken in any of the three cases.
It is extraordinary how that majority of one in that police authority should come to back three senior officers. I would have loved to be a fly on the wall and to hear how that majority was achieved and what happened. By no stretch of the imagination can that majority of one be


regarded as a unanimous decision and vote of confidence in the three senior police officers of the most controversial police force in the United Kingdom. Of course, it was democratic and it was a majority of one, but let us see what that majority of one decided that they would not inquire into.
The police authority stated:
Mr. Sampson commented that the conduct of the three Chief Officers justified criticism and referred to short-comings in both operational and administrative matters. The criticisms revolved around operational planning, operational procedures, the conduct of an investigation into certain matters arising out of two of the shootings and an alleged lack of assistance to the Stalker/Sampson enquiry team. The officers concerned strongly denied that these criticisms were valid.
There was a majority of one in a police authority of 16. Was that majority of one achieved by the casting vote? How many people were present and voted on that occasion? A planted question was tabled today about what is to happen to the new police authority. It would be nice to know how many of that minority will be reappointed and, for that matter, how many of the majority.
The one thing that is certain is that that vote by the police authority will not do anything to restore confidence. If the three top officers are still not to be investigated—I should state immediately that the authority said that it was not culpability that was at issue, but a possible further investigation, presumably to find whether they were culpable, in view of what Mr. Sampson said and in view of their escape by one vote—that is scarcely something that will give confidence about the administration of security in Northern Ireland.
That issue raises questions about the other matters into which Chief Constable Kelly has been looking because if those three senior officers have got off without even an inquiry, by a majority decision, democracy is working for those three senior officers for whom there was a vote, but for other officers there is straight disciplinary procedure—although it would look most unfair if strong disciplinary charges were preferred lower down the line. If disciplinary charges are deserved—and we do not yet know what is in the report—they should be preferred, but if they are preferred against the juniors, their superiors should be investigated for culpability. If there are two standards in this matter, it cannot be a good omen for morale within the force or for the general organisation and support for the rule of law in Northern Ireland.
In a sense, all this was to be expected when the Government did not support the rule of law and, for reasons of national security, the Attorney-General, or the Director of Public Prosecutions following the advice of the Attorney-General, decided not to prefer criminal charges. That was straight Government interference, which is why we need to have a proper judicial inquiry. What happened just does not stand up.
The country will face widespread and sustained national and international criticism and the Government will no doubt persist with their transparent arguments against a judicial inquiry. We in the Opposition have not changed our minds, and perhaps the Government will reconsider and change their position, for it is certain that the killings in Armagh and the inquiries and procedures that followed will not go away; they will continue to haunt

the Government, to undermine confidence in the security forces and to demonstrate the Government's spurious claim to adhere to the rule of law.
The Government's insensitivity to Irish sensibilities has been called into question in other areas. Events in Gibraltar and what followed undid what progress had been made following the adoption of more sensitive policing methods for Republican funerals. Timidity in relation to reforms in the administration of justice resulted in a general perception among Nationalists that nothing had or would change.
There was a most extraordinary exchange between former members of the Fine Gael Government, who negotiated the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and the British Government, alleging bad faith, failure to live up to undertakings, and misrepresentation. The collapse of the supergrass system was seen as a defeat of Government policies, rather than as a concession to Nationalist and international feeling.
Only the Government tried to have it both ways. To the Unionist parties they said, "We cannot interfere with the judiciary," and to the Nationalist groups they said, "This is all part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It shows that it is working and supergrasses have gone." The Government have refused to budge on the Diplock courts and internment powers. The improvements made—and some have been made—are simply viewed with a degree of cynicism and indifference. Over the past year the Government cannot claim much to their credit on those matters.
We welcome the progress that has been made in conjunction with the Irish Government, and the steps taken by the security forces in finding arms and the proper apprehension of people involved in violence. We rejoice when people are brought to trial and convicted, and we are sad when the Government seem to embark on other courses of action which bring Britain's reputation and the rule of law into question.
In November 1985, when we discussed direct rule, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said of the people of the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland:
I recognise their fears, I know they feel beleaguered, and excluded from designing their own destiny, that they live in constant anxiety about a sell-out and that any failure by a British Government to explain their intentions heightens those feelings of fear. I know that they feel that deals have been done behind their back, and some will feel deep and genuine resentment at that … I plead with the majority of non-Nationalists not to be blinded by prejudice. I ask them to see that the sole beneficiaries of a breakdown would be the terrorists, that the objectives of the constitutional nationalists for the foreseeable future are limited to reconciliation and stability, and to see their acceptance of consent as the absolute precondition of any change. I ask them to see that the common cause of peace is a greater cause than the preservation of this miserable murderous status quo."—[Official Report, 26 November 1985; Vol. 87, c.753.]
It was in such conciliatory terms and with an impassioned plea to both sides to try to break out of their ideological prisons that my right hon. Friend called for support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement. He saw it as an opportunity for all parties in Northern Ireland to think again and as an agreement which offered something to all sides. It offered them then, as now, a real alternative to direct rule.
The problem with the Anglo-Irish Agreement in so far as it affects these issues is that it seems to have closed off


in people's minds the ability to see the opportunities for a devolved Administration which existed long before the agreement was invented. Since 1969 there have been a series of major initiatives. Sunningdale and the power-sharing executive collapsed in 1974, the convention of 1975 failed, the Atkins conference was abandoned in 1980 and Prior's rolling devolution scheme, out of Mawhinney, produced no power sharing.

Mr. James Molyneaux: But he was promoted.

Mr. McNamara: That may yet happen to the right hon. Gentleman.
All those constructions were attempts to find a basis for a devolved Administration in Northern Ireland. All necessitated reaching an agreement between Nationalists and Unionists, and with the British Government. But because the possibility of devolution was written into the Anglo-Irish Agreement, suddenly for those opposed to the agreement the concept of devolved government seemed tainted in a way that it had not been before, at least in principle, except perhaps in the Sunningdale agreement.
As an example, I wish to consider briefly what seemed to be the essence of what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said on this matter. If I am inaccurate in summing up what he seemed to say on "Panorama", I am sure that he will forgive me and explain his comments to me. I am considering the possibilities of devolution as an alternative to the direct rule provisions in the order.
The hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that there were three preconditions for talks between himself and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), on the one hand, and the Taoiseach, Mr. Charles Haughey, on the other. First, he said, there would have to be an internal settlement in Northern Ireland so that the talks were between Dublin and representatives of both traditions in Northern Ireland. Secondly, there had to be a suspension of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, so in practice, an end to meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference and the closure of the secretariat. Thirdly, there had to be an end to talks between the Social Democratic and Labour party and Sinn Fein.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman does not have that right, but I shall correct him in my reply. I made it clear that the internal settlement had to come first; that there could be no negotiations until the other prerequisities, for which we have a mandate in our election manifesto, are carried out; and that any talks between Dublin and Belfast would be on a plain of equality with the people responsible for the government of Northern Ireland dealing with matters of mutual interest with the Government in Dublin.

Mr. McNamara: I gave a fair summary of what the hon. Gentleman said, although perhaps not in the order that he would have wished. The problem is that, whatever the talks with Dublin, those representing the North would be speaking from a devolved government position. Although I want talks to take place between all parties on the island of Ireland, the correct people to talk to Dublin are Her Majesty's Government.

Ms. Clare Short: Surely we would all welcome talks between Unionists, Nationalists, Dublin and Belfast and encourage any agreement that they can reach, rather than get in the way of it?

Mr. McNamara: I was not saying that. My speech in Belfast yesterday made it clear that I would welcome talks among all the constitutional parties, North and South, to work out their future government. That is the whole essence of Labour party policy and it is our position. My hon. Friend, at least on this occasion, has correctly stated our policy.
In summing up the position of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, my argument related to the talks that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and his party are having with the Provisional Sinn Fein. Their success will obviously depend on whether he can persuade Sinn Fein to end its support for the campaign of violence being conducted by the Provisional IRA and to recognise the significance for all in Ireland of article 1(c) of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, in which the two Governments declare:
if in the future a majority of the people of Northern Ireland clearly wish for and formally consent to the establishment of a united Ireland, they will introduce and support in the respective Parliaments legislation to give effect to that wish.
In that sense, there is no way that our party, in supporting the agreement—and interpreting it generously for the Government—would stand in the way of the wishes of a majority in Northern Ireland if they wanted to work towards constitutional unification.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Would the hon. Gentleman clarify his party's position? If a majority in Northern Ireland decided upon some course of action other than entering into an all-Ireland republic, would his party stand in the way?

Mr. McNamara: The provisions of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to which we adhere, and to which our Government and the Republic of Ireland Government were signatories, stated clearly, directly and specifically that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom until such time as laid down in paragraph 1(c).

Rev. Ian Paisley: Read it.

Mr. McNamara: I do not have a copy with me. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out of me whether we would go along with the idea of an independent Northern Ireland, the answer simply is no. We do not think that that would in any way help the people of Northern Ireland, the people of Ireland or the people of this country. However, if the Democratic Unionist party is now in favour of an independent Six Counties, perhaps it should make that clear.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose——

Mr. McNamara: No, I shall not—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman was stating that as his party's position, we know where the Democratic Unionist party stands. If it is not, when he makes his speech he can say so. In his "Panorama" performance, when driven on that particular point, he said, "If needs be, that is it," or words to that effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and his party are seeking to bring an end to violence in the island of Ireland and to influenc the Provisional Sinn Fein to achieve that with the IRA. If that aim is achieved, all hon. Members should applaud and welcome it, because it gets rid of one of the major difficulties to progress in Northern Ireland for the good of the people of Northern Ireland and, especially, for the Nationalists.
The Opposition hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle will be successful in his discussions with the Provisional Sinn Fein because we believe that—[Interruption.] Does the Minister of State want to make a comment?

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): No.

Mr. McNamara: We believe that anything that is likely to end violence is important.

Mr. Alton: Before leaving that point, I am sure that the hon.Gentleman would wish to clarify his position. Surely he is not suggesting that it is proper or sensible for people from Opposition parties to have direct talks with Sinn Fein.

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman must speak for his party, but I shall make the Labour party's position absolutely clear. The Labour party will not share platforms or talk to people who advocate a policy of the Armalite on the ballot box. In my first speech on Northern Ireland matters, after my right hon. Friend had given me the honour of Front Bench responsibility, I made that point clearly. That is the Labour party's position; it is committed to seeking a united Ireland by consent.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle and his colleagues who are living in and representing people in Northern Ireland, feel that they can bring those who are indulging in some of the most horrific forms of violence—some of which we witnessed yesterday—to stop and instead to pursue a constitutional and democratic way of seeking to achieve their aim, I do not think anybody should seek to prevent them from doing that. We have every confidence that our sister party in the Socialist International is taking the best road for all the people in the island of Ireland.
The second argument of the hon. Member for Antrim, North was that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be suspended, which is the point from which I started a few moments ago. The important point is that he is looking at the agreement in the wrong way. The agreement carries at its heart the seeds of its own destruction in many of those clauses that are most objectionable to its Unionist opponents. The Opposition support the agreement and will continue to do so until there is something wider, better and in concrete terms that is acceptable to both communities. When that becomes available we will, quite properly, accept it, but until then we shall support the agreement.
This is only our third debate on the review of direct rule since the agreement was made. In all the previous 11 debates, Opposition Members wrestled with the problem of how to end direct rule and to arrive at an internal settlement for Northern Ireland. Surely, after all that time, we should not countenance the argument being moved

back, so that instead of being, "We must have an internal settlement before we can end direct rule," the argument becomes, "We must have a suspension of the Anglo-Irish Agreement before we can have an internal settlement before we can end direct rule." If we are not careful, such an argument could regress indefinitely or become circular—something, I fear, that might already have happened.
Unionist Members have argued repeatedly for increased security in the Province, and have condemned the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a failure because it has not ended the violence. There is some irony in their argument, for while violence has undoubtedly continued, and the latest horrific, frightening episode was in Linaskea yesterday—it is a strange policy to unite Ireland by blowing it apart and destroying its young people—the agreement has clearly led to improvements in security and security co-operation. In fact, security has been on the agenda at 15 of the 20 meetings of the Intergovernmental Conference, and in the majority of them it has been the major item for discussion.
I have no criticism of that; I welcome any discussion on security and also the increased evidence of co-operation on both sides of the border in the determination to defeat those engaged in violence for political ends. However, I would not minimise, to the extent that the Secretary of State might have done, the ability to do it on an all-Ireland basis. We would welcome the prospect of the reduction of the remit of the Intergovernmental Conference as a result of an agreement on a devolved administration in Northern Ireland.
Let me end with a brief mention of the review of the working of the Intergovernmental Conference. There is no reason to believe that those who are not party to the review—everyone, that is, other than the two Governments—will be able to have a direct and immediate input. Yet I would like to see both Governments using the November review to encourage the Unionists to come in out of the cold and to see whether they can find a way in which those parties can have an input and a say in matters which come before, and are discussed in, the Intergovernmental Conference, and in matters which come before the civil servants in Maryfield.
The approach of the third anniversary of the signing of the agreement could serve as a catalyst for the review by all parties of past attitudes to the agreement. Out of that may come the potential for political movement.
All hon. Members owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to find a way out of the impasse which continues. We need to remind ourselves that, quite apart from the security matters, dreadful and important though they are, and the constitutional matters that are also important, there are social and material matters unrelated to the national question which are of importance to the people of Northern Ireland—concern for jobs, education for their children, security, decent housing and an opportunity to live in peace. Those are the issues that we should be talking about which could properly be the subject about which representatives of the people of Northern Ireland could talk about in a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland.
If we take the steps necessary to end direct rule, we shall also have moved some distance down the path to peace and reconciliation; to normality in Northern Ireland. We on the Opposition Benches are committed to working for that. We urge the Government and all hon. Members to bend every effort in that direction. If the 13th debate on an interim period extension order led eventually to talks


without prejudice with the Secretary of State, let us hope that the 14th will lead to an agreement without any prejudices.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: That this is to be, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has just reminded us, the 14th interim period extension order, illustrates the truth of the French saying that nothing endures like the provisional. Apart from the post-Sunningdale period of the power-sharing Executive, Northern Ireland has been subjected to quasi-colonial rule by mainland Ministers, and I share some of the criticisms made by the hon. Gentleman of the system of direct rule.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the extension of abortive—I would say lethal—political initiatives. Three Assemblies have been convened and done away with. I say three by including the Constitutional Convention, which was the scene of turbulent events. I recall a friend of mine who was an Assemblyman and was asked by a friend of his what had gone on during the riot in the Constitutional Convention. He said that he was sorry but he could not help. He could not say anything about it because Mrs. Paisley was sitting on his head—Mrs. Paisley being a member of that Constitutional Convention as well as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
A hard-pressed Province is now threatened by another Assembly—a legislative assembly, which means an assembly that will make laws separate from this sovereign Parliament. I am disturbed, dismayed and distressed by the insistence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on devolved government as distinct from devolved administration—the phrase used in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. My right hon. Friend's predecessors have pursued the will-o'-the-wisp of a form of devolved government acceptable to both Unionists and Nationalists.
I wish that Her Majesty's Government would not persist in policies and aims that distance Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom. How many decades will have to pass before a Conservative and Unionist Government return to the general election commitment drawn up by Airey Neave? He had the workable alternative to direct rule. I am surprised to hear my right hon. Friend say that devolved government had the backing of both Nationalists and Unionists in the Province. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) can help the House on that matter if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
When it is argued that devolution, in the sense of devolved government, is what the people of Northern Ireland want, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he has noticed and studied the high degree of support in both parts of the community revealed in public opinion surveys for what is loosely described as integration, by which we mean not governing Northern Ireland as if Belfast were the same as Finchley— not at all. By integration we mean a distinct system of administrative devolution from this Parliament appropriate to Northern Ireland. Can we not get out of the rut of failed policies and work to bring Northern Ireland into the mainstream of United Kingdom politics so that in time Right and Left can replace orange and green, as has happened over the years in the mainland cities of Irish settlement?
Were we to do that we would be serving notice on the terrorists that their separatist game was up. Then again, it would remove the fear that closer partnership between the United Kingdom and the Republic spelt the betrayal of Unionism—the fear of deals behind Unionist backs, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North.
The hon. Gentleman and I both want something better than the Anglo-Irish Agreement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was looking forward to the November review of the working of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Conference. I am glad of the growing support for an idea which I think I was the first to put forward in the House months ago, for the replacement of what one might call Hillsborough Mark I by Hillsborough Mark II—the replacement of an unequal treaty by a fully reciprocal treaty.
I am one of those who would welcome the setting-up of a parliamentary body representing the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I have always hoped for a still closer link between two sovereign states already in unique relationship. A united Ireland is not on, except within united islands.

Mr. James Molyneaux: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who I appreciate has another engagement and must leave, quoted the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition as saying that the Unionist representatives of Northern Ireland would have a say in our own destiny.
I must respectfully qualify that, because if we go for devolution, as the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman seemed to be suggesting, we would not have a say in controlling our destiny. I am not saying that we should be in absolute control of our destiny—none of my hon. Friends would say that—but the Anglo-Irish Agreement makes it clear that, in the event of any level of devolution being installed, only certain matters will be devolved. The phrase that appears in every other item of legislation affecting Northern Ireland—"transferred matters"—is not used.
There was meant to be a world of difference, because those certain matters would be decided upon by the Anglo-Irish Conference. It would not be decided en bloc that these transferred matters would be automatically devolved as from the date of implementation. The conference would decide that certain matters—and decide which ones—would be devolved to a structure at Stormont. What it gives, it can take away. That is why devolution under the auspices of the Anglo-Irish Agreement is unacceptable for us.
I want to be generous to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North because he did the House a real service. I shall return later to something that he said. Suffice it to say for the moment that I am sure that my hon. Friends on both sides of the House are grateful to him for the Opposition's assurance that there will be no political or military withdrawal from Northern Ireland. I am also grateful for the assurance—it was implicit and deliberately inserted in his speech, so I am certain that he meant it—that the people of Northern Ireland will never be thrust out of the United Kingdom against their wishes. Those are valuable reassurances.
Hon. Members who entered the House after the general election last year may be somewhat puzzled by the charade in which we are engaged. They have the opportunity to come here—not many of them have availed themselves of it, and I do not blame them—to take their seats in the circus for the first time in their lives. It is a circus to which they will be invited every year of their political careers unless—this is an important proviso—the House at long last decides that enough is enough.
Proof that this is a circus can be found in the Official Report of 2 July 1984, when the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, now Lord Prior, said:
the Government hope in the coming months to have detailed discussions with the Northern Ireland parties. Our purpose will be to see whether agreement can be reached on arrangements for enabling locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland to exercise at least some of the functions which are currently discharged by Ministers answerable to this House."—[Official Report, 2 July 1984; Vol. 63, c. 107.]
I do not think the present Secretary of State would disagree if I said that his words tonight roughly followed those lines. He did not depart from them to any great extent.
For 14 years, successive Secretaries of State have been persuaded, or perhaps programmed, to churn out this sort of phrase. They do not believe one word of it. True to form, the Northern Ireland Office is yet again asking the House to renew a temporary interim order for the 14th year. We owe it to the honour of the House to consider whether we can, with any justification, continue to append the adjective "temporary". It is wearing a bit thin after 14 years.
For the benefit of those who consider this ritual to be necessary, let me explain that it is nothing of the sort. Today's exercise is not the inevitable consequence of the removal of Stormont in 1972, when there would have been no difficulty in Parliament saying that it had removed devolved government and proposing then to govern Northern Ireland like Scotland, for example. But Whitehall opposed such a course, for a sinister reason. Northern Ireland had to be kept detachable. So this Heath Robinson tumbril was wheeled out and kept in readiness—it still is—to trundle Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom when the opportunity presents itself.
If anyone doubts me, he need only look at how the Order in Council procedure fits so neatly into the halfway house that we know as the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Northern Ireland has been kept separate from the rest of the Kingdom. It is simplicity itself to exercise joint London-Dublin control over the Province without the House of Commons even being aware of it. Decisions can be made in the joint conference, so let us have none of this nonsense about sounding out, expressing views and considering this, that and the other. We know perfectly well that decisions are reached in the joint conference which override submissions from the natives of Northern Ireland and from those of us who represent them.
Unlike the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers who make statements after ministerial meetings and summits, the Secretary of State—it is not his fault; he is caught in the tram lines—does not make a statement to the House after each meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference. He dare not do so, because Parliament would then be alerted to what is being done behind its back. I am glad to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for

Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), on the Front Bench. On 30 March this year he published his proposals for educational reform in Northern Ireland. As happened with the parallel proposals for England and Wales, his proposals have been opposed by the Churches in Ireland—they are all-Ireland Churches, so we can call them that.
Before the Churches could receive a response to their submissions they read in the newspapers and in the communiqué issued on 17 June that the Anglo-Irish Conference had discussed those proposals. The communiqué states truthfully and bluntly:
The Conference discussed also the Consultative Paper outlining proposals for education reform in Northern Ireland. The Irish side drew attention to concerns which had been expressed in the nationalist community about certain aspects of the proposals.
No doubt that intervention by the Dublin Government was welcomed by one of the Churches, but what about the other three? It is true that they can make representations and lobby hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland, but the Minister will not heed what is said in the House.
For that matter—this may not have occurred to hon. Members—the Minister is not even bound to heed the clear view of the House. But he is bound, through his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to—I quote the agreement—
make determined efforts to reach agreement on proposals put forward by Dublin".
So he can make determined efforts and reach agreement with Dublin, and the House is utterly impotent. Take it or leave it, the Order in Council procedure will ultimately be seen through in 90 minutes flat by the payroll vote.
Many other examples from the communiqué of 17 June illustrate all too clearly how the democratic processes are being bypassed and rendered invalid. For example, appropriation orders and debates on them are rendered utterly pointless. The Anglo-Irish Conference has discussed, and presumably agreed, how British taxpayers' money will be spent in west Belfast. I am not opposed to that. I suppose that the taxpayer will learn in due course of the amount expended on his behalf in that operation. I do not know whether it is intended eventually to extend the scheme to the other 16 constituencies, or whether this is a specific privilege to be accorded to the one constituency in Northern Ireland whose Member of Parliament never takes the trouble to take his seat.
Another item of expenditure is mentioned in a mysterious reference to the economic and social problems of what is called the north-west of the island. That topic has never been mentioned in the House, as far as I can remember. So what need is there for appropriation order debates, including the one that is due to follow tonight?
The inherent defects of the 1974 Act as an instrument for government have been compounded by the imposition of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. What was objectionable in 1974 has now been made completely unacceptable, not just to Northern Ireland but surely to a Parliament which serves as a model for democratic structures everywhere. Northern Ireland Office Ministers are not required—nor, for that matter, are they permitted—to come to the House to explain the views put to them by their Dublin counterparts on any given clause or section of a Bill, let alone on an Order in Council.
When under pressure from a Dublin Government to
make determined efforts to reach agreement",


the Order in Council process is a godsend for Northern Ireland Ministers. They need only gloss over the awkward points in a very brief opening speech in a 90-minute debate. In an even briefer winding-up speech, perhaps only 10 minutes, they can with no difficulty ignore searching questions. As I have said, at the end of one and a half hours the payroll vote will see the Government home and dry.
As long as that utterly pernicious system is sustained, it is idle and useless to follow the Secretary of State into discussions on wider issues. That is because the truly monstrous combination of the Order in Council system and the Anglo-Irish Agreement will continue to strangle all democratic development. Either of those monstrosities makes progress and good government impossible.

Ms. Short: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's frustration at the Order in Council procedure. Those of us who have worked in Standing Committees have the same experience. It does not matter how telling the point or how rational the argument, because the Government's vote can push anything through and there is no respect for the quality of the argument from the Opposition. I fear that if the right hon. Gentleman succeeds in getting legislative change other than by Order in Council, he will have exactly the same frustration as he has now.

Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention because it gives me an opportunity to point to one or two occasions on which, because there was a certain co-ordination and cohesion on the Opposition Benches, we were able to make a dent in a Government with a majority of a 100. I mention, if I may dare, the Firearms (Amendment) Bill on which my party played no small part. We can make the Government listen and I am not as pessimistic as the hon. Lady seems to be about the possibility of our combining forces. The job of Opposition parties in any Parliament is to scrutinise, criticise and oppose the actions and decisions of the Government of the day, whatever their complexion. That is our role and I hope that in the days to come we will have a rather more effective combined Opposition.

Mr. Alton: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that Orders in Council are brought before the House in a peremptory and rapid way and that that leaves so little time for debate that people end up being frustrated? Does he agree that the process does not leave much scope for rational politics?

Mr. Molyneaux: I agree entirely. In certain cases, where the order is of some importance, the process allows for what is called a consultative period. Submissions are made by all sorts of bodies and normally Members of Parliament and parliamentary parties make submissions as well. Education is one such important matter. However, I suspect that in the end the Minister with responsibility for education makes up his mind with the benefit of the advice he obtains from Dublin. All of us on the Opposition side will do our best to introduce some flexibility into his thinking, but unless the Opposition parties stick together and speak with a united voice, I doubt whether we will have much influence over the Minister.
Needless to say, my hon. Friends and I have no intention of giving any credibility to this phoney annual circus act beyond registering our disapproval in the Division Lobby. I shall end on a rather more positive note.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North did us another service. I welcome his declaration as spokesman for the Opposition that he does not regard the Anglo-Irish Agreement as being written on tablets of stone. I understand that he said that in a speech published yesterday in Belfast.

Mr. Mallon: It was Charlie Haughey who said that.

Mr. Molyneaux: I understood from the hon. Member from Kingston upon Hull, North just before he left the Chamber that he had repeated it yesterday. That in itself is good news. However, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North went beyond that and, as I recollect, he said that he was quite prepared to consider an alternative agreement, a wider and more workable agreement. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will agree that he and I have been saying that privately and then publicly for 10 months. We have said that our two parties are prepared to be positive. We are prepared to assist, to make our contribution to the design of a much wider, more workable and more practical agreement. We are genuine in saying that we regard such an agreement as a prerequisite.
That must be the starting point for everying else that has been talked about in the three speeches that we have heard so far. I hope that we can now persuade the Government to fall into line with the Opposition, with the three parties in the Dail and to say that they, too, are prepared to be flexible and to consider a more workable agreement.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I should like to start by expressing my horror at the bombing of the school bus in Lisnaskea. I hope that the young girl who was so seriously injured will be able to overcome her injuries and resume a normal life. I should like to add my words to those of the Secretary of State in expressing my admiration for the way in which the security forces handle this most difficult and intractable problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude.
As we know, the debate is taking place against the background of the possible attempt to recreate some form of regional administration which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined in his speech. We have just heard the reaction of the Leader of the Ulster Unionist party. What the right hon. Gentleman has said is of the greatest importance and must be taken very seriously by the Government if they want any attempt to create a devolved administration to have any success.
As hon. Members have said, the debate is taking place after almost three years of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and 14 years of direct rule. During all that time the emergency has continued. Instinctively, I welcome attempts to create a more effective system of local government in Northern Ireland, for I think it is generally agreed that since Stormont was taken out of the structure of government in 1972, the Province has had less local government than any other part of the United Kingdom. As we know, that serious deficiency continues from year to year.
After so many failed attempts to create new institutions—sometimes, I suspect, because the House refused to show proper sensitivity to the attitude of Ulster politicians—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is right to prepare the groundwork away from the gaze of the


media and the public. I hope that he will not restrict himself to those policies put forward by his predecessors, which have so far yielded results of no consequence to the future good government of the Province.
In the course of his speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seemed to be putting forward two ideas. In one he talked about the dialogue on Northern Ireland politics that this debate represents—as it should, for this is the Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What is more, we know that that dialogue takes place in an assembly where sectarian, ethnic and religious differences play no part and where the issues involving the other regions of the United Kingdom are similarly discussed.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State then went on to talk about a devolved legislature in the Province of Northern Ireland. I repeat that we have been down that road before. That is why Northern Ireland has no local regional administration, that is why this debate is taking place 14 years on and why we shall continue to have these debates annually if we pursue a will-o'-the-wisp that is beyond catching and which will always elude us.
Sectarianism still exists in Northern Ireland. There are still two traditions and no legislative assembly can succeed while the two traditions have such basically different objectives. On the other hand, a devolved administration committed to local government could handle the local affairs of the Province and implement legislation passed in this House in a way in which sectarian and traditional differences would play only a small part.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State developed his ideas, I wondered whether he was not just picking up what had gone before over the years in the initiatives for Northern Ireland, and whether the Anglo-Irish Agreement was not the unseen hand manipulating the thinking of the Northern Ireland Office. Of course it is true that Northern Ireland is markedly different from other regions of the United Kingdom, not just because it is separated by sea and has a border with another state but because it has a divided population with one half—the larger half, if I may use that expression—bending towards Westminster and the minority leaning towards Dublin.
To that extent, the Anglo-Irish Agreement may seem to mirror the two traditions. No doubt that is why an impartial observer might expect peace, stability and reconcilation to be its natural outcome. As we all know, that has not been the case. In reality, the image in the mirror looks different according to who is holding up the looking-glass.
To Whitehall, the recognition by Dublin that the Province of Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom has been seen as such an important gain that Her Majesty's Government felt the South could have a say in the affairs of the North. In Dublin, the agreement represented an opportunity:—the first that the Irish Government have had since the creation of the Province—to have a say in the affairs of the Province and, as the agreement states, to enable the Government of the Republic to put forward proposals for major legislation and on major policy issues where the interests of the minority community are significantly or especially affected

if it should prove impossible to achieve and sustain devolution on a basis which secures widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland.
There are others who look into the glass. The Ulster Unionists, I suggest, see only English and Irish Ministers looking back at them and wonder why their own reflection is not there although they represent the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland. Members of the SDLP are as happy to see the Taoiseach looking back at them as one of their own. As for Sinn Fein, if it looks at all, it would happily smash the mirror with an Armalite round or a bomb, because its political aims do not lie within the status quo and certainly do not include a British presence in Ulster. The mirror charms or repels each who looks into it according to his viewpoint but does little, if anything, to reconcile anyone to anyone else. It does not even reconcile Dublin to London.
We should not forget that the Prime Minister of the Republic, Mr. Charles Haughey, recently stated that his intention was
to correct the historic inability of the British to understand Irish feelings.
With such a view, is it to be wondered that in recent months the Irish Government have taken a bolder and more interventionist approach in Northern Irish matters—as they did, for example, over the Stalker-Sampson inquiry and over the case of the Birmingham pub bombers? The Anglo-Irish Agreement gives them that say while devolved government is absent from the Province.
What now worries me is whether devolution, as spelt out in the agreement or as referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this afternoon, is to be what the British Government say it is to be or whether it must meet a formula made not only by the Government with the Northern Ireland political parties but by agreement with Dublin. Who is to decide what
widespread acceptance in Northern Ireland
means? That is the only condition on which the Anglo-Irish Agreement will not give the Dublin Government the right to put forward proposals for legislation and so on.
Surely, if there is enough common ground between the political parties in Northern Ireland—always excepting Sinn Fein—for the creation of a devolved administration it would not be right for Dublin to put a spanner in the works simply because it forgoes its right to put forward proposals for major legislation and on major policy issues.
I am convinced that an effective local administration in the Province, to which the community could bring its problems to have them discussed and solved, is far more likely to bring peace, stability and reconciliation than anything that representatives from London and Dublin could hope to achieve, particularly while Belfast seems to be the pig in the middle. No consultation machinery is built into the Anglo-Irish Agreement to enable local politicians to have a say about the vital policies affecting the place where they live and the people whom they represent. That cannot be right.
This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As we all know, Northern Ireland legislation is treated in the most arbitrary way possible. It is appalling to realise that the Northern Ireland Committee last met to discuss business on 26 June 1985, when it considered the draft gas order. In the past three years, a great deal of legislation affecting the Province has gone through the House but, as we all know, those orders were dispatched in the space of 90 minutes each.
I know of no reason why the Northern Ireland Committee should not be reconvened. It is in the Government's power to reconvene it. It would be a poor substitute for the legislative survey that a Second Reading debate provides, but it would at least allow Northern Ireland Members to consider legislation affecting their Province in more detail and with much greater care than can ever be done in those brief 90-minute debates on the orders.
I do not object to the debate on the extension of direct rule. If tonight we were debating an order that was to extend direct rule for another five years, I should not object, because I want to see this Parliament remain the sovereign Parliament of Northern Ireland, where its legislation is settled and where its great issues are debated. I also want to see, running alongside it, a local administration in the Province that gives Northern Ireland a local government structure on all fours with all the other regions of the United Kingdom. Without that, we are guilty of preventing democracy from playing its proper role in the governance of Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Alton: I agree with what the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) said about the need to use again the Northern Ireland Committee, which is allowable under Standing Order No. 99. That would be sensible, and I hope that it would not be long before it would have the chance to sit in Northern Ireland as well, as the Scottish Grand Committee sits in Edinburgh. However, I disagree with what the hon. Gentleman said about a rather diminished form of devolution, perhaps in the form of a regional assembly, running alongside Parliament. I should like to see full-blooded devolution, not just in Northern Ireland but in Scotland, Wales and the English regions.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), speaking on behalf of the official Opposition, spoke about the outcome of the inquiry into the Royal Ulster Constabulary. That outcome, passed by a majority of one, is the worst of all worlds. I strongly support his call for a judicial inquiry. The House should give serious and urgent consideration to the establishment of a Select Committee to oversee the security services and the policing arrangements in a tense situation such as that in Northern Ireland.
The House is faced with several options. The first is the Government's option for steadfastly pursuing the objectives in the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Then there is the option that, to some extent, is favoured by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), which is going back to pre-1985 direct rule and the mythology of a Northern Ireland that is as British as Finchley, to borrow a phrase used by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). The third option is that which I am sure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will put forward if she catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. That presents the idea of removing British troops and creating a united Ireland. That is a fairy-tale solution, which would simply replace one aggrieved minority with another.
I support renewal of the British commitment to Northern Ireland, because to do anything less would be to condemn the Province to even greater instability and to civil war. The first of those options, the one that the

Government are presenting to the House, is the only realistic one. Any fundamental shift in our approach would be music to the ears of all the paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and any pretence at easy solutions, whether military or otherwise, is a lie. There are better and worse options and the development of the British-Irish Agreement, which is what I wish it were called, and the understanding that there now is between the British and Irish Governments, has created the best mechanism for achieving the reconciliation that I am sure is the objective of most hon. Members.
None of this should be shorthand for complacency. We must admit that the agreement has defects. It was born in a climate of secrecy and perceived treachery. Its biggest defect remains the exclusion of the Unionists, excluded initially by an over-secretive British Government and then self-excluded subsequently. For three years, the Unionists of Ulster have said no, but have largely failed until recently to offer constructive ways forward, with the exception of the task force report, with which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) was associated.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman explain something to us, because we are in complete ignorance? I have read and re-read and parsed the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and that is something that many who have spoken in the House have not done, because they read into it things that do not occur in it. Where in the Anglo-Irish Agreement is there any provision fog any contribution from the Unionists?

Mr. Alton: What the hon. Gentleman says is valid in the context of this arena and this Parliament, where he makes his contribution. If, instead of boycotting the agreement, he and others were to become participants in it, there is no reason why he should not make his contribution, in the House, to the Intergovernmental Conference. That is the way in which the Government speak directly to the Irish Government. If he is saying that, alongside the Intergovernmental Conference, there should be a new mechanism which allows for the Unionist Members of Northern Ireland to be able to make their input into that agreement, I would support that view.
Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come forward with a constructive proposal, setting out in detail how he sees that working in practice. I hope that Unionists will end their boycott of the agreement and exercise their imagination in responding to Mr. Haughey's invitation to open-ended discussions.
I regret the outright refusal of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to take part in that process. However, I was pleased to hear the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley legitimately and reasonably ask to see the colour of the Taoiseach's money, so that we can see what he has in mind, rather than just accepting the invitations that he has issued from locations all over the world.
It is inevitable that, before the review of the Intergovernmental Conference and the agreement, there will be some manoeuvring, but if that degenerates into a game of hide and seek, the fragile prospect of historic direct talks will be dashed. There is a new mood in Ireland, and I was heartened when I was in Cork recently at the conference of our sister party in the Republic, the Progressive Democrats, to hear its leader, Mr. Desmond O'Malley, say:


Mutual suspicion in Northern Ireland is so deep that no agreement could possibly manage at once to satisfy all sides. But there can be no taking away from its fundamental achievement of creating a dynamic climate for change.
That is why Nationalist politicians who only grudgingly accept the agreement are being totally ungenerous. They fail to appreciate the catalyst it has been in breaking the logjam of generations. That is why it was so sad to see it devalued by the present Taoiseach on his recent American fund-raising trip.
Mr. O'Malley went on to make a point that it is important that Unionists should hear:
The operation of the Agreement is due for review by the Dublin and London Governments by next November. That review is a glorious opportunity to extend the scope of the dialogue beyond the two Governments, and to involve also the constitutional representatives of both communities in the North.
What the outcome of such talks would be is hard to forecast. But if it could lead to that elusive goal of Nationalist and Unionist agreeing on a form of Government in Northern Ireland, nobody should stand in its way … As political intransigence in the North begins to defrost, I want to say to the Unionist community: You are not without friends on this side of the border. I have already spoken of this party's commitment to a tolerant, pluralist Republic.
There is a deep and growing appreciation throughout the Republic of the terrible suffering you have endured, not least in the border areas, where a virtual campaign of genocide has been waged against you by the IRA.
I know from my visit to Enniskillen last month that, in the aftermath of the atrocity there, the Unionists were extremely grateful to the Progressive Democrats who had visited the community and stood beside them in their grief and bewilderment at what had taken place there in the name of a political philosophy based on the gun. Instead of scoffing and being cynical about such remarks, let us examine the new mood inside the Republic and welcome such a constructive approach.
I have great admiration for the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). He said that he had given endless time and energy to his talks with Sinn Fein over the past six months. I hope that he will put the same time and energy into discussions with the constitutional parties of the other side of the divide.
As long as Sinn Fein is wedded to unity by force it will sustain and not end the divisions in Ireland. Mr. Gerry Adams's admission in the aftermath of Enniskillen that military victory is impossible did not prevent the bombing in Lisburn. Public admissions of the futility of these atrocities have not stopped the cycle of violence. Talking to Sinn Fein while it condones the violence of the IRA is to lend it the clothes of constitutionality. It should stand for what it is, an organisation of brutal killers which uses sickening and bestial methods.
Amnesty International is an organisation for which I would have respect, but it falls into the same trap when it refers to Sinn Fein as an armed opposition group. That is a euphemism and an entirely inadequate description which is grossly offensive to the victims of every outrage committed in the name of Republicanism. If the IRA really wants the troops out and an end to the violence that has disfigured the affairs of Northern Ireland, it must forswear terrorism. Constitutional parties should have no part in dealing with it until it does that.
I have said that the agreement has defects. However, there are things that can be done during the next 12 months to help it develop. The prerequisite to that must be

full Unionist involvement. I should like to see moves towards the establishment of a joint security commission that will involve both the Irish and the British Governments.
It would be welcome to see the extradition fiascos put firmly behind us. Rules should be established so that we shall no longer have to go through an endless game of charades every time extraditions are attempted. Similarly, there should be joint British-Irish anti-terrorist legislation to demonstrate that the Prevention of Terrorism Act is not a piece of anti-Irish legislation, which is the view of some of those who live in the Irish diaspora in this country. Unlike the hon. Member for Epping Forest, I should like to see the establishment of a British-Irish parliamentary tier.
On Friday, we shall be considering one of the benefits of the Anglo-Irish Agreement when we turn our attention to the White Paper on fair employment. I welcome that initiative, which is a step in the right direction. It will be good news for some of those who feel, quite justifiably, mthat they have been discriminated against for many years purely because of their religion.
I have said that there were better and worse options available. If Britain walked away from Northern Ireland, we would condemn its people to civil war. It would be irresponsible to do that and a capitulation to violence. Unionism, however, must appreciate that the old catch-cries of not an inch and no surrender are no substitute for political endeavour. If movements that offer the illusory but seductive solution of withdrawal without tears are not to be given momentum, constitutional parties must break out of the straitjacket of tribalism.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has the most difficult job of all the members of the Cabinet. There are no prizes and only few chances of spectacular success. There are many wooden spoons and no shortage of heartbreak. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the full support and gratitude of the House for undertaking his task, and he will receive it from my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Rev. William McCrea: I rise once again to discuss an issue which has caused the people of Northern Ireland heartbreak and a continuation of sorrow. If we have direct rule in its present form, with what has gone forth for the past 14 years, my constituents who live along the border will have a continuation of sorrow, murder and destruction.
Some of those who have participated in the debate seem to live in a world that is separated from the realities of Northern Ireland. I cannot object that some of them are living in that world. They have not visited the Province frequently to see the situation for themselves. If and when they do come, they do so at the invitation of a party that has no representation in this place. They usually parrot out some of the speeches of that party, including one from the east Belfast area, which I thought that we were going to hear again today. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) is seeking to uplift Mr. Alderdice as much as he can, although Mr. Alderdice has no elected position on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland.
The people of Northern Ireland are dismayed and distressed by those who pontificate about the Province. They try to give the impression that the Members of this


place have all the answers and that the people of the Province are the numbskulls who need to be beaten into subjection. They suggest that at some stage the people of Northern Ireland will surrender their rights as individuals to speak as a democratic people, with a right to vote and for their votes to count in the same way as those in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I know that there are many in the Northern Ireland Office who have no desire to see the end of direct rule. Many of the civil servants in the Northern Ireland assembly objected when members of the Northern Ireland community dared to ask them a question. They objected when they dared to bring them to account. They did not want to answer for some of the decisions that they had taken.
It annoys the people of Northern Ireland that civil servants have more power than the elected representatives of the people. I can assure the House that the civil servants in the Northern Ireland Office will do all in their power to hold on to their authority rather than allow the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to speak for the people of the Province.
I listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). We receive lectures on sectarianism. We are told that we are not to have a closed mind and that we are not to be biased. We are told by Opposition and Government Members that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is leading us in only one direction. If the people of Northern Ireland really want to go into a united Ireland, then both Governments will run through the legislative process to ensure that we get into an all-Ireland situation.
That is the only direction permitted. No other alternative is permitted under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. No other alternative will be listened to by those on the Government Benches. We are clearly told that there is no other alternative from the Opposition. That was made clear by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. The hon. Gentleman made it clear that the majority view will be heeded when there is a rigged majority in one direction, and that must be towards Dublin.
It is about time that the Government told us how much they feel for the people of Northern Ireland, especially the hard-pressed people in the border areas. I have in mind a constituent of mine who lies buried tonight, Michael Darcy, and his mother, who is left broken-hearted. I feel for these people and others like them.
It is about time that the Government said, "We are for the Union." I have never heard that said since I became a Member of this place. I have not heard that said from the Government Dispatch Box or from those who sit on the Conservative Back Benches. The Secretary of State has said personally that he is for the Union, and I accept that. I am talking about the Government and those who speak on behalf of them. They have not said that they want the people and the Province to be a full part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Tom King: I am a member of the Government, and I have made the point that the hon. Gentleman raises absolutely and abundantly clear. Does the hon. Gentleman actually want to go somewhere else? A sort of fear seems to pervade these interventions. Actually the Anglo-Irish Agreement says—it is an act of generosity and clear commitment by the Nationalists as well—that Northern Ireland, we accept, is part of the United

Kingdom and will remain so. [Interruption.] Do not argue. I say to hon. Members, do not argue because the reality is, as everybody knows, that there will be no change.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Do not lie about it.

Mr. King: I am not interested in abuse. I am interested in the people of Northern Ireland and in them knowing the facts. The fact is the Anglo-Irish Agreement states that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without the agreement of the majority.
I often think that I have more confidence than many others in the majority in Northern Ireland. I have made it abundantly clear that I do not believe that their views will ever change. However, I accept as part of the reality of a democratic life—and this is part of the Anglo-Irish Agreement—that if the majority of people in Northern Ireland wanted to change the situtation, no Government would refuse to accept a democratic view. Hon. Members sell themselves short if they keep seeking to pretend that they have no confidence in the majority in Northern Ireland wishing to maintain their present status within the United Kingdom.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the Secretary of State for making another speech. I need no lectures from anyone to know exactly where the Unionists stand. Hon. Members would do better to read the agreement. It is most misleading to lecture my hon. Friends, because we have read the agreement from beginning to end, which many Conservative Members have not done—otherwise they would not have gone into the Division Lobby to support it.
As far as the Anglo-Irish Agreement is concerned, there is no change in the status of Northern Ireland. The question is, what is Northern Ireland's status in the eyes of both Governments? We found out exactly what it is in the Irish Republic's constitution. which claims jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. For the Irish Government, there is no change in Northern Ireland's status, because they believe it is still within their jurisdiction.
The Secretary of State may fool certain Members of his own party, as he has in the past, but he should not come to this Chamber and try to ram his views down the throats of the people's elected representatives. It is our future that is at stake. It is not a part of England, of Scotland or of Wales that is up for sale—it is Northern Ireland, as a part of the United Kingdom. We are British citizens, and we prove that by the way in which we seal our love for being a part of the United Kingdom with our blood. We shall take lessons from no one.
The Secretary of State can sit and mutter away but my constituents derive no comfort from the words that are said from the Dispatch Box time and time again, as to how sympathetic are the Government and how they feel and pray for the people of Northern Ireland. The Government could do more than pray. They could put feet on their prayers and give action to their prayers. They have the power to reach a solution and to stop the IRA from murdering the people of Northern Ireland.
Seated next to the Secretary of State is the Minister with responsibility for defence matters. Quite often in these debates, he sits with a smirk on his face, but he does not know how the people living along the border feel. Never once has he visited them. Never once has he walked into the home of a person who has suffered tragedy and whose


future is at stake. Those people ask their elected representatives, "Why isn't something done?" When we, as their elected representatives, make speeches, it is easy for others to say, "You shouldn't worry and shouldn't get heated," but it is we who have to walk into home after home.
I assure the House that if any hon. Members representing constituencies in England, Scotland or Wales had to walk behind coffin after coffin, and had to face widows and orphans, it would not be smirks that they would have on their faces but expressions altogether more serious. They would surely return to their Ministers and say, "Something must be done."
If the policy on security has not put an end to terrorism after 20 years, there is something wrong. It would not be dishonourable to change course and to introduce something more effective to stop the IRA's murdering gangs. It is totally misleading to suggest that the Irish Government recognise Northern Ireland as a part of the United Kingdom. They state that there will be no change in Northern Ireland's status without the will of the people, but the status they are talking about was established in the past week in the Dublin court. We shall learn with interest the evidence that was given in the Dublin court concerning the McGimpsey case, and the court's ruling on the status of Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Secretary of State will return to the Dispatch Box and explain away the evidence that was given on behalf of the Dublin authorities.

Rev. Ian Paisley: As it seems impossible for me, as the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, to be called to speak in this debate, and as I have no intention of taking any further part in it, I wish to ask my hon. Friend if he agrees with me on this point. If, as the Secretary of State said, it is right to legislate for a majority and recognise their wishes if that majority is a Republican majority, is it not right that the Secretary of State should also put it on record that a Protestant majority wanting an arrangement other than the present one should also be legislated for?
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) told the House that the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland will never have a say. Should not the Secretary of State, knowing very well that both the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Popular Unionist party want Northern Ireland to remain within the United Kingdom, face up to that? However, we do not want Dublin to have a say over us, or a situation in which we are pushed down the street into a united Ireland. That we will not wear.
Whether or not the Minister with responsibility for education smiles, for he has already forsworn his Ulster heritage, does not matter. The Secretary of State cannot always take the majority with him. He says that he knows what the majority believe. He should resign his seat, and I will resign mine, and then we could both fight. He would lose his deposit, because he does not know what the majority want in Northern Ireland.

Rev. William McCrea: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I wrote down the Secretary of State's words as he was speaking: "I believe this is what the people want." That was a very interesting statement, and I would like to know how the Secretary of State has found out the will of the people. He has not found it out on the ground

—from the ordinary man and woman in the street who elect representatives to the House. I would be happy for the Secretary of State to come to Northern Ireland, seeing that he is so sure that he knows what the people want, and accept the invitation that has been extended to him.
One of his hon. Friends has decided to take an active interest in the Province and may try to stand in North Down. We were listening to lectures from her and perhaps the Secretary of State will come to Northern Ireland, and to North Antrim, and take up the challenge that has been made to him.
The will of the people is expressed at the ballot box. Despite all the rigging and attempts to change it, the fact remains that the Unionists have given their backing to their leaders. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) have the backing of the people and speak with the authentic voice of the people: let no Minister tell us that he knows better than the elected leaders of the people. It would have been appropriate for my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, as leader of our party, to put forward his points of view in a Northern Ireland debate, but he has not been called.

Mr. Jim Marshall: The hon. Gentleman claims to have written down the words of the Secretary of State. It is perhaps unfortunate that he failed to write down those of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who made it clear that the official Labour view on Northern Ireland was and is that no majority in the North of Ireland will be forced out against their will—or thrust out, which I think was the word used by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. It is very kind of Her Majesty's Opposition to be willing not to kick us out and to let us stay for a little longer. [Interruption.] I have the Floor.

Mr. Mallon: We noticed that.

Rev. William McCrea: That is very kind of the hon. Gentleman. He will know more, because I shall deal with the SDLP in a moment.
It is the will of the people of Northern Ireland that will keep Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom——

Mr. Martin Flannery: rose——

Rev. William McCrea: I have a problem, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One the one hand I have heard an objection that my speech is going on too long and that others want to intervene. On the other hand, I would not like to stop a moderate from speaking.

Mr. Flannery: I made up my mind that I would not intervene, because I want to speak later, but my chances of doing so are becoming slimmer and slimmer as the hon. Gentleman's speech continues.
Let me refer the hon. Gentleman briefly to the contribution of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), to whom I always like to listen. I had the general impression that he really wants an independent Northern Ireland with him leading it. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether the Unionists want an independent Northern Ireland or want to stay in the United Kingdom?

Rev. William McCrea: The people of Northern Ireland desire to be full members of the United Kingdom. We do not want to sit on the periphery of the United Kingdom, to be kicked out whenever someone decides on it; we want to be active members of the United Kingdom.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is nothing better than joint sovereignty between London and Dublin. It does not give Northern Ireland full and equal membership of the United Kingdom. No other part of the United Kingdom suffers the interference of any foreign and on many occasions hostile Government. If this is what is known as equal membership of the United Kingdom, the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland are not willing to accept it.
I say without apology that if that is what is being forced on the people, the Unionists will not walk down the Dublin road. If a choice is to be made, the Unionists can make an alternative choice. If it is right for a majority to choose a united Ireland, a majority can choose some other administration to take over the running of the country. That is the will of the people. That is the route that the Unionists and those living on the border are willing to take if the Government will not give them equal rights as members of the United Kingdom.
I do not know whether it is a deliberate twist of thinking, but people are trying to suggest that Northern Ireland Unionists do not want to remain within the United Kingdom. That is not true. They want to remain, but to do so on the same grounds as everyone else. The Prime Minister herself said that we would be as British and as much a part of the United Kingdom as Finchley. To the best of my knowledge, Finchley has no agreement with any foreign Government to rule its citizens—although I am not sure about that: it may have happened before the House met today. Such circumstances can change very quickly. Liverpool, for example, contains many minorities with different backgrounds, and may desire the intervention of some foreign Government. To the best of my knowledge, however, it has no agreement or joint authority to run its affairs.
All that we are saying is that we seek equal rights as equal citizens in the United Kingdom. That is not too much to ask.

Mr. Alton: Surely the point is this. The hon. Gentleman protests his loyalty to this country and its institutions. If he is loyal to this Parliament, why is it so impossible for him to concur with its majority wishes? The Anglo-Irish Agreement was passed with perhaps the biggest vote in the lifetime of the last Parliament.

Rev. William McCrea: The thinking behind that amazes me. Not one Northern Ireland Member has ever given his allegiance to this Parliament in relation to a particular party or decision. Our allegiance is to Her Majesty The Queen.

Mr. Flannery: What about democracy?

Rev. William McCrea:: It is a mockery for the hon. Gentleman to talk about democracy. Democracy in the House is majority rule, and that is what is being denied in Northern Ireland. That is what is being thrown out each time. Let no one sit on his rear end and try to insult the people of Northern Ireland by telling us that this is democracy. It is not. It is an abuse of the democratic rights of the people of Northern Ireland to refuse to listen to their elected representatives.
I challenge the Government, if they feel that the people have changed their minds and want to go along with the Anglo-Irish Agreement, to put it to the test of the ballot box. The Secretary of State knows that the people will come out with a resounding no. The three principles of the agreement—the rest of the United Kingdom had better realise this—are peace, stability and reconciliation. It is interesting to note that in all the recent debates about the profit of the agreement, Ministers have now moved off those three principles. We never hear them say that the agreement is bringing peace, stability and reconciliation. The most recent statement that I heard from a Minister was that it had brought realism to the Unionist leaders, and the knowledge that they would have to do something other than simply say no: they would have to accept the agreement.
That shows how much Her Majesty's Ministers have learnt. Of course, it is difficult to learn such a lesson sitting behind barbed wire in Stormont; it is difficult to get the message from ordinary citizens in the community. But that can be resolved if the people change their minds. The House had better wake up to the fact that if this is put to the people through the test of the ballot box, the people will reject it. Instead of peace, it has led to turmoil; instead of stability, it has led to further instability; instead of reconciliation, as many Ministers—not in the Northern Ireland Office but in the Cabinet—have admitted, it has not succeeded. A senior member of the Cabinet admitted that in a recent interview.
Let not hon. Members live in cloud-cuckoo-land. Let them face reality. I am an ordinary Ulsterman. I am not a professional politician and I have no desire to be one. I am concerned simply about the future of my children in Ulster. Hon. Members sit down with representatives of the murderers of our children and our people in Ulster.
I listened carefully to a recent debate about Northern Ireland to which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) made an interesting contribution. He stated:
No member of my party has ever donned a balaclava or uniform, has ever manned a barricade or carried a coffin of a leader of the Ulster Volunteer Force."—[Official Report, 16 June 1988; Vol. 135, c. 580.]
That is an insult to the integrity and the knowledge of the people of Ulster. It is common knowledge in Ulster that Gerry Adams is not only the leader of Sinn Fein. A recent programme on Northern Ireland showed that Gerry Adams was not only the leader of the political party, but he was an active terrorist in Northern Ireland. Gerry Adams was the leader of a group that organised a bombing in the city of Belfast. There are many more godfathers.
I can give a direct challenge. In the district that I come from, John Joe Davey—and I have to sit in the same council chamber as him—did the final run when Kenneth Johnson was murdered. The Sunday before the murder, John Joe Davey, the Sinn Fein councillor, chose the spot where the bicycle was left for the person who had done the murder to get away. He was followed on the Sunday before the murder. I have given that information to the police, including the timing, the place selected and the rest of it.
Let not the SDLP get off the hook. The representatives of the Sinn Fein with whom they speak are not just members of the Sinn Fein. Someone in the Northern Ireland Office told me that practically every Sinn Fein councillor came from the military wing of the IRA. The SDLP sit down with Gerry Adams. Let them not say that


they have never donned a balaclava or uniform or manned a barricade. They are sitting down with the men that carried the bombs and executed the murder of people in our Province.
Those hon. Members had better examine their consciences. It is not enough for them to say that they are sorry for the young girl who is fighting for her life. Pious words are past going into the ears of the people of Ulster. It is not enough for hon. Members to come to the House and condemn murder after murder. We have consigned the people of Northern Ireland to 20 years of murder. If it were on the mainland, more than 100,000 people would be dead. Does the Secretary of State believe that hon. Members would be saying nice little words and making nice little speeches to the Secretary of State? He knows that there would be a demand for action, and furthermore, he knows that action would be taken.
We in Ulster are sick of listening to people saying, "We condemn." We are asking for an aggressive policy against terrorists in our country to stop terrorism and bring us the peace that we need. No matter what form of government is adopted in Northern Ireland, and no matter what decision is taken, let no one think that the IRA will fold its arms and go to sleep. Whatever Administration takes over in Northern Ireland—the British Government have the authority and the ability to do that—they will have to defeat the IRA. They will have to take military measures to defeat the IRA, because for 20 years the IRA has carried on a campaign of murder and destruction in our Province. It has safe homes all over the place. Let us not forget that 100,000 people went to the ballot box and voted for Sinn Fein.
If anyone thinks that the SDLP has gained ground, all I can say is that in recent talks the SDLP has lifted Sinn Fein out of the gutter and tried to give it an air of respectability, with the idea that together they will stop the murders. But since those talks more murders than ever before have occurred. The IRA has slaughtered young soldiers; now it is attacking young children. It is all covered over by words of sympathy.
In this debate I heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—the hon. Gentleman should blush— tell the House very piously that the Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and the Official Unionists in Newry and Armagh joined to appoint an IRA man. He said there was an unholy alliance with Sinn Fein. That is totally untrue. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is untrue. The person who was elected is an independent councillor. The only reason why the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh is crying is because the SDLP candidate was beaten to the chair. It is only sour grapes that led him to mislead the House.
The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), who unfortunately has left the Chamber, said that he was delighted that in the council chambers in Northern Ireland the SDLP had turned its back on Sinn Fein and removed its representatives. There is nothing further from the truth. The SDLP in Enniskillen council, after the murder of 11 innocent people, was shamed into dropping the Sinn Fein member that it had appointed in the first place as chairman of the council. But what did it do? If it was shamed in Enniskillen, it shifted the shame to Strabane. It swapped the area in which it gave Sinn Fein

control. In Strabane every SDLP councillor voted for the Sinn Fein chairman of Strabane council, another godfather of the terrorist group in Strabane. The SDLP put him in power.
In Magherafelt the SDLP joined with Sinn Fein to elect a Sinn Fein vice-chairman. Did it have to do that? Was it under attack? Did the Unionists oppose the SDLP chairman? Not at all. The Unionists decided that they would be smart for the SDLP and put them to the test as they had. five members of the council and were the big power-sharers in the community. The Government have always spoken about the kindness of the SDLP in reaching out olive branches and have said that everything was beautiful from the SDLP point of view. What happened when it came to the election of the chairperson in Magherafelt? A lady took the chair. That lady was proposed and seconded, and no Unionist opposed the SDLP election.
This is an important matter for the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), as his party is under scrutiny. Perhaps it is best that he remains in the Chamber. In that council there was no opposition to Sinn Fein. Indeed, the SDLP did not need Sinn Fein to get the chair. There were five SDLP council members and three Sinn Fein representatives. But when it came to the election of the vice-chairman, every SDLP member voted for the Sinn Fein vice-chairman against the Unionists. Why? That is the new olive branch, that is the new moderate image that is being shown by the SDLP.
Ulster Unionists are not blind to what is going on in our country. Because of the smartness of Gerry Adams, the SDLP has been led like little puppets along the route. The SDLP is now doing the bidding of Sinn Fein because it has been outwitted and outflanked by Gerry Adams. The Sinn Fein is ready and prepared for the next local government election because it has been given its best bonus in years for success for the future. It is only right that we put the situation right.
We then listened to the Secretary of State today. I am interested in how the Minister will reply on behalf of the Government. The Secretary of State said today that the SDLP has put forward proposals in favour of devolution and that it is working for devolution, as are the Official and Democratic Unionists. That is interesting as, a matter of weeks ago, in a radio interview Danny Morrison, Sinn Fein's spokesman and one of those involved in the secretive talks with the SDLP, said for all the people of Northern Ireland and, believe it or not, even the Northern Ireland Office to hear, that, in all its talks, the SDLP had told Sinn Fein that it was not interested in devolution. Since that revelation, there has been not a word of denial from the SDLP. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State told the House today that the SDLP wants devolved government. We hear a different story from a party to the secret negotiations. They have to be secret, and we find that Sinn Fein releases just what information it wants to release about the talks.
I shall be happy to give way if an hon. Member who represents the SDLP wants to correct me. This is a vital matter, and the SDLP should come clean. Perhaps Danny Morrison is doing the dirt on the SDLP. If so, that should be made clear to everyone. If, however, he is speaking the truth, someone else is speaking with a forked tongue.
The SDLP must not leave its new-found friend. It dare not because it knows that Adams has the party where he wants it—he can say just what went on, which is not in the


SDLP's interests. It was reported in a Belfast newspaper that the SDLP has stated that its policy is not to stop violence but to curb it. That reminds me of a former Minister speaking of an acceptable level of violence. We need an answer to that too.
The Secretary of State said today that the SDLP wants to stop the violence. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said today that he wished the SDLP well if it wanted to stop the murders and the violence. An SDLP spokesman said that the SDLP wanted only to curb the violence. In other words, the SDLP is telling my constituents that it does not accept the number of people who are at present murdered along the border, and that it wants to cut the number a wee bit. That is the truth, as the SDLP and other parties have used the violence committed by the IRA. There never would have been an Anglo-Irish Agreement if it were not for the murders. The Government were forced to negotiate with Dublin under the shadow of the gun.
There have been calls for inquiries. There are those among the Loyalist community who, under our present system of direct rule, are sickened with the biased calls for inquiries. I am sure we all remember the great hullabaloo about the McAnespie case along the Aughnacloy border. The SDLP ran to Dublin. It has no confidence in itself or in its ability to speak for the minority community, so it has to seek support. A young lad was castigated throughout the country. It was said that he had committed murder.
The Southern Government jumped into the act. Charlie would have to back up the terrorists. He demanded that the body be exhumed. There have been no calls for an inquiry since. There have been no calls for an inquiry into why the SDLP and others agitated to get the body lifted. Why? The answer was not to their liking. The soldier could not be charged with deliberate murder, which was the first charge laid against him. Nobody saw it happen, but everybody was there to make their condemnation.
The cardinal jumped into the act. Why not have everybody in the act? When people want to condemn the British Army, get everybody into the act. He flew home. He did not fly home on account of the murders in Protestant areas, but he flew home and made his speech, in which he said the killings of McAnespie was deliberate murder. When the body was lifted they found that it was not done that way, but a young British soldier had been castigated throughout the world. He has been put on an IRA list. His name has been pulled through the gutter. When threatened and frightened, any young lad can make a mistake. Even Opposition Members can make a mistake. Not so a young British soldier. It is good enough to condemn him before he has been tried properly.
As to the Stalker inquiry, in a newspaper this morning, the Northern Ireland Office is reported as saying:
a judicial inquiry would not be helpful. But the possibility of bringing disciplinary procedures against officers con-cerned"-—
listen for it—
was being vigorously pursued.
We are talking about using lads, who were sent out to do a job, as scapegoats. We are being told, "Let's castigate them, for who will be concerned about a young policeman?" Certainly not members of the SDLP.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself a wee bit. The police authority said today

that no action will be taken against the Chief Constable and two other senior officers. We have heard that no action will be taken against them in court. What about the ordinary officer? He is expendable. Let us use him as the butt of it all. Let me make it clear in the House that there are persons who, if they are used as a scapegoat, will tell the full story.

Mr. Mallon: Why do they not tell it anyway?

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and his hon. Friends know the names of the Birmingham Six. Why do they not give their names? A member of Her Majesty's Opposition says that he knows the persons who murdered the people in Birmingham but he thinks too much of the Republicans to announce their names. I do not believe that it is right to use young, ordinary policemen as scapegoats. If heads are to roll it should be those of the political leaders higher up the line who gave the instructions in the first place, rather than the young lads who simply carried out their instructions.

Mr. Mallon: Apart from the obvious harm that the hon. Gentleman is doing to the British parliamentary system, he should be concerned about the damage he is doing to the truth. Twice today, once in the House, I said that it is scandalous that the Chief Constable and his two deputy assistant chief constables should be exonerated and that people lower down the line should have to carry the can— those are the words I used—for decisions they made. I will, with the same vigour although perhaps not with the same verbosity as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), defend the right of any single policeman. Today I asked the Police Federation to take an interest in this so that we would not find the men at the top going scot-free while ordinary constables suffer for them.
I will go even further. The:hon. Member for Mid-Ulster said that there are people in the police force who could tell all. Would he adjust that to say that they would tell the truth? If they would do that, they would have the support of everyone in the Nationalist community and everyone who values truth in our community. Let us put the right people in the dock. It should be the Chief Constable of the RUC who is responsible, the deputy chief constable who was responsible for the E4A unit and the other deputy chief constable who was in total charge of the special branch.

Rev. William McCrea: I have learned something today. I have learned that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has such a love for the British parliamentary system that he is worried about it. That will be news to the people in Newry and Armagh. Gerry Adams will be interested in that as well. It is the first time that I have ever known the hon. Gentleman be concerned about or interested in the British parliamentary system. He has been interested only in using it. I am taking this opportunity to make a few necessary remarks because misleading statements were made in the House earlier. We had better get the facts out in the open. An Ulsterman would rather be told the truth than be told some made-up story just to please him and then be kicked on the pants when he is out the door.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has called for the resignation of the Chief Constable and two other senior officers of the RUC.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Rev. William McCrea: I am not surprised at that, because the hon. Gentleman has called for the resignation of the entire Ulster Defence Regiment. Three resignations from the top of the RUC will be nothing when one considers that he wants every UDR man to go.
I do not believe that the Chief Constable made the decision on his own. The decision went into the higher reaches of the political arena. Therefore, we should not use anyone as a scapegoat. The House is supposed to be responsible, and there are bound to be people in the House who must bear the responsibility for any action taken. I am convinced that there are Front-Bench members of Her Majesty's Government who know more about this incident than the ordinary wee man or ordinary wee officer who carried out the instructions.
The statement from the Northern Ireland Office said that
disciplinary procedures against officers concerned"—
that is, the smaller officer down the line—
were being vigorously pursued.
No doubt those officers will have stripes removed and there may be demotion and so on if the Government can get away with it. However, the people at the top will not suffer.
I speak on behalf of the Unionist population, especially along the border areas which are under constant attack by the IRA. The Loyalists do not believe that the RUC has a shoot-to-kill policy. The shoot-to-kill policy in the Province is the policy of the IRA. Every bullet fired by the IRA is shot to kill and every bomb it sets is a bomb to kill, including the killing of the young girls on the bus yesterday. We do not hear about inquiries for those. I have never heard the SDLP ask for an inquiry into how the IRA murdered so many young policemen in Newry. I never heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh request such an inquiry.

Mr. John Hume: rose——

Rev. William McCrea: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, do not worry.
I have never heard a call for an inquiry into the bombing at Enniskillen. The Roman Catholic Church authorities objected to the searching of the building on the day of the remembrance parade in Enniskillen. For the first time in seven years there was no search of the building, because of objections from the priests and 11 people were murdered. There has been no call for an inquiry as to how that atrocity was able to take place. There has been no inquiry into the incidents at Cappagh when the hunger strikers were buried. There were photographs in the newspaper of the priests clapping at the graveside as the IRA fired the shots. There was no inquiry and no intervention by the security forces to stop that fiasco from continuing.
The only time that the SDLP will call for an inquiry is when it is against the security forces which are trying their best to fight the murderous bunch of rascals in the IRA. The IRA has no qualms about shooting. It never asked Michael Darcy in my constituency to put his arms up. The IRA shot him in the back, as it usually does, while hiding behind a hedge. He is only a UDR man and his life is expendable. It is more important to stop IRA men who are carrying out dummy runs or the full run of their weaponry of disaster and destruction.
Let us have the full details and facts clearly stated in this House. Along the border people are calling upon the

Government to carry out a policy that will bring an end to the years of trouble and allow everyone in the Province to live in peace.
We have been talking about direct rule. Some months ago 11 people were murdered at Enniskillen. A few weeks ago six soldiers were killed. How did the Government handle that under direct rule? How have they got to the bottom of those murders in our Province? The answer is that the Secretary of State makes a statement. That stops a debate because after his statement a Northern Ireland Member—or any other Member of the House—is permitted to ask only one supplementary question. There is no chance of getting a debate on security even after 11 people have been killed. Even with six soldiers dead, we did not get a security debate. What we got was a short statement from the Dispatch Box which was a cover-up and one question each so that no hon. Member can get to the bottom of the things that trouble the community in our Province.
Direct rule is a fiasco. It is not the answer. The people of Northern Ireland should have the power back in their own hands to decide their own future and should not be run down the Dublin road by an Anglo-Irish so-called Agreement, which is soaked in the blood of the innocent. There have been more deaths in the first year of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which was supposed to be about security and supposed to bring peace, than there were for possibly two years before it.
The IRA are on the offensive and the Government are making the security forces go on the defensive. It would be right and proper if the security forces were given backing and assistance. Other things that I have said when putting the record straight have been controversial, but I hope that the House will unite in giving its unreserved support to the security forces in their fight against the terrorists. They have a difficult, even impossible, job and deserve the support of all right-thinking people in the Province, whether they are the UDR, the RUC, the RUC Reserve, or the young lads of the British Army—our Army. They have done an excellent job and are trying their best under difficult circumstances. I suggest that, instead of some hon. Members sniping at them, it would be better if the House gave them its support.
I notice that the spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has returned to his place. While he states that his policy and that of the Labour party is that they do not take platforms with the IRA or Sinn Fein, the hon. Gentleman would do well to tell some of his hon. Friends that that is the rule of the game for Her Majesty's Opposition. It is a fact that some of his hon. Friends, be they renegades on the periphery of the party and about to drop off it, or others, have campaigned with Sinn Fein representatives and have brought them to this House while that organisation was backing the murderers of people in Northern Ireland. It is not enough for the hon. Gentleman to state his policy. When is that policy to be adhered to throughout his party, because that would bring some encouragement to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. John Hume: Many people will have found the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) depressing. They will not have any difficulty in understanding why we have a serious problem


in Northern Ireland when they consider that the hon. Gentleman is also a clergyman who is supposed to be committed to the basic Christian message of loving his neighbour. When we hear such sentiments from that sort of source, no one should be in any doubt why we have a problem in Northern Ireland.
I should like to clear up one or two matters before continuing my speech. We do not need public inquiries into killings by paramilitary organisations because murder is murder. It is as clear-cut as that, so we do not need an inquiry to prove it.
Several hon. Members have referred to the fact that both myself and my party are engaged in direct talks with Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Provisional IRA—

Rev. William McCrea: It is not the political wing.

Mr. Hume: It is the political wing of the Provisional IRA.
Ever since I was elected 20 years ago to represent the people of Northern Ireland, I have made it clear that I would talk to anyone if it would contribute to peace and stability. I have talked to everyone—Loyalists and paramilitary members—at their request and there has not been a whimper of complaint from those sources. The SDLP and the Alliance party alone have remained wholly committed to the democratic process and have never had any alliance of any description—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster spoke for exactly one hour. He bored me stiff for most of that period and disgusted me for the rest of it. I have no intention of letting him interrupt my brief speech. We have never had any alliance with any paramilitary organisation. We are wholly opposed to violence. [Interruption.] I shall not take lessons from the hon. Gentleman's party—[Interruption.]—which on numerous occasions has sat down with masked men and paramilitary organisations, not to tell them to stop their violence, but to co-operate with them to achieve political objectives. My party has never done that and has no intention of doing it. We are committed to bringing violence to an end.
Life would be much easier for my colleagues and me if we took the self-righteous stance of simply seeking to maintain our position, and did not in any way engage in the art of politics to persuade others what they should or should not do. We knew from the start that we would be criticised from that source, and if we do not succeed in our objective, it will undoubtedly intensify. If, however, we succeed, there will be silence and that, as well as ending violence, would be a great achievement.
In view of the tenor of the Secretary of State's opening remarks I hoped that this debate would concentrate on the problem that we are all trying to solve. It has been easy to state party positions.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State said that there was a desire to move to talks among all constitutional parties. The hon. Gentleman must know politics in Northern Ireland well enough to know that his present dialogue with representatives of Provisional Sinn Fein, whether he agrees with this or not, forms a barrier for Unionists in any dialogue with his party. Even if his party's aims in those talks were to convince Sinn Fein, and through it the IRA, that there was another way to make progress in Northern Ireland, the events of the past months must show that he cannot fulfil that task. There must come a moment when he has to tell us candidly that

they will not stop their violence, and it is far better to work with those who want to make progress through the constitutional and democratic process.

Mr. Hume: My party and I have been waiting for the past three years to talk to the hon. Gentleman and his party. If they wish to talk to us tomorrow, we shall talk to them. We shall tell them exactly what we have said to Sinn Fein so that they can make up their minds. We do not change our attitudes to problems according to whom we are talking to, because the problems remain the same.
I hoped that this debate would be about the problem that we are trying to solve. I have noted in the past that when the different parties have defined the problem they have all defined it differently, and they pass one another on the way to the solution.
It is easy for parties in Northern Ireland to whip up emotions based on sectarianism, hatred and bigotry. That is a symptom of what is wrong; that is the problem we are trying to address. Hon. Members have used phrases such as "an internal settlement". What does that mean? The only people who want an internal settlement in Northern Ireland are those who want an independent Northern Ireland. I understand that the Unionists want the problem to be settled in the context of the United Kingdom, but that would not be an internal settlement.
It is clear that there are different dimensions to the problem. There is a clash of relationships in the community in Northern Ireland, but that reflects another clash of relationships in the island of Ireland and another between the two islands. Those three relationships combine to make the problem that we must solve, and we must deal with all of them. We have only to listen to the two extremes in Northern Ireland—one says, "Brits out" and the other says. "No Dublin rule"—to understand that the other dimensions impinge upon the problem and must be dealt with if we are to solve it.
My party has given solid support to the Anglo-Irish Agreement because the framework of the problem, being the British-Irish framework, should also be the framework of a solution. However, it is only a framework. Movement can take place only if the different sections of our community are prepared to work together and break down the barriers between them. In the meantime, the two Governments are working together to deal with that problem.
Can anyone suggest a better and more peaceful way of dealing with the problem than the two sovereign Governments working together as closely as possible? That does not mean that they will always agree—if they did, there would be no need for them to sit down together—but they will do their best to agree on an approach that will bring the problem to an end. I cannot envisage any better way of dealing with the problem than that. If those who oppose that method of dealing with it can suggest a better way, we shall all listen.
By dealing with the problem in that way, the two Governments deal with the day-to-day problems on two levels. One level is what I call the symptoms and the other is the disease that gives rise to those symptoms. The symptoms of the Northern Ireland problem that spring from our division as a people and from the prejudices of centuries are all over the place—for example, discrimination from the past and policing. As we have repeatedly said, policing is not a problem of policemen. The absence of political consensus on how Northern Ireland should be


governed means that until that is solved, there will always be a policing problem. The administration of justice and all the other matters that we complain about are also symptoms of the underlying problem. Progress is being made on some fronts, but not on others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) will deal with those matters in more detail if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker. If all those symptoms and the disease—the underlying division between the people that has given rise to it—were satisfactorily cured tomorrow, they would recur in another form. The agreement has made major progress in dealing with that disease and the rigidity that has paralysed the North of Ireland for most of this century.
If we stand back from the problems, we see among the relationships the central one of the Unionist people to the remainder of the people of the island. For their own reasons, they have decided to live apart from the remainder of the island, and they have done so by holding all power in their hands. That position no longer exists; it was not an approach designed to produce peace and harmony. But every time a British Government moved to make the situation fairer, dire consequences were threatened by the leadership of the Unionist people and on each occasion the British Government backed down—the most recent being in 1974.
The consequence of that surrender of responsibility by British Governments was that the leadership of the Unionist people remained in uncompromising hands, in the hands of people who refused to address the fact that they were living in a divided society and had to come to terms with their neighbours and the people with whom they shared a piece of earth. In the Nationalist community it gave encouragement to those who say that the only thing that the British understand is force.
That vicious circle of threats of force from Unionism and actual force from the IRA has paralysed Ireland for most of this century. Now at last that vicious circle is being cut through because the Government have stood firm against those undemocratic threats, and the Secretary of State, who has been in the front line, has taken a great deal of personal abuse in standing up to those threats. But that has made the most significant advance in dealing with the problem since 1920 because the Unionist people are now facing up to the reality that in a divided society one must sort out one's relationships with the people with whom one differs and one cannot for ever seek to hold all the power in one's own hands and use blackmail whenever someone steps in to demand fair play.
That has been a painful experience for the Unionist people because of all that has gone before, but it has also been a healthy one for them and for the community as a whole because now we are all on an equal footing and that is the basis on which real dialogue should begin.
We are willing at any stage, with no preconditions, to enter into dialogue with the Unionists on any matter. We are willing to enter into dialogue about how we should run our community in Northern Ireland without any pre-conditions. We, from our experience, have recognised, and we have told the Secretary of State and have said so in public, that there have been five attempts—the fifth was announced today by the Secretary of State—to create

devolution in Northern Ireland. We have participated in most of them and we have learned why they have failed. They have all failed for precisely the same reason.
Stormont, which was majority rule, failed because the majority held all the power in their own hands. Why? Because they were afraid to give the minority anything because of their fear of their relationship with the rest of the island. Power sharing was brought down in 1974. Why? Because those of us who were sharing the administration of Northern Ireland with the Unionists were regarded as fifth columnists who were acting on behalf of the rest of the island.
That is still the basic fundamental suspicion of the Unionist people in sitting down to talk to us—the relationship between the Unionist people and the rest of the island. Until they sort out that relationship to their own satisfaction—I am not suggesting any conquest—as well as to the satisfaction of the rest of us, that lack of relationship will always be a destabilising factor. I ask them to sort that out to their own satisfaction by sitting down with the representatives of the rest of Ireland.
I am suggesting that the subject of conversation be how we live together on this island. It is a simple subject. In advance of that, it must be clear that we cannot live together unless we both agree. There can be no conquests, no victories. There has to be agreement. The people of Cyprus will never sort out their problems until the Turkish and Greek Cypriots agree that there can be no victories.
Until now, the Anglo-Irish Agreement has focused on the challenge that it has given to the Unionist people. But, in fairness, that agreement has also thrown down a serious challenge to the Nationalist people. That challenge is a simple one. It says, "We recognise that the Nationalist-Republican tradition in Northern Ireland wants to see Ireland united and the people of Ireland united." We must tell the Nationalists that the agreement really means that the Irish people who want unity must persuade those who do not, and that is the challenge.
This task can never be achieved by the gun or bomb. That must be learned by the Nationalist-Republican tradition in Ireland. Something else must be learned, too. The Government have stood firm against blackmail, and the IRA and its supporters must realise that the past 15 or 20 years have cost the people of Northern Ireland, including many who support the IRA, dearly. In what it calls a war, 3,000 people have lost their lives—the equivalent of 40,000 on this island. Twenty thousand have been maimed; three new prisons have been built and they are full of young people who have been sucked into the violence; 11 walls have been built in the city with the highest churchgoing population in Europe—Belfast—to separate one section of a Christian community from another and to protect the communities from each other. If that does not tell us that past attitudes have brought us to the present position, what else will?
After all this loss, is there anyone in these two islands, even in the membership of the IRA, who thinks for one minute that the British Government, led by the present Prime Minister, will surrender to blackmail? Everyone knows that that will not happen. So the question that IRA members must ask themselves and their followers is whether they will ask their people to pay this price for another decade. That challenge is thrown down and accompanied by the offer that if those people really want peace, stability and unity in Ireland, their task is to persuade those who do not—our Unionist and Protestant


fellow citizens. That task has never really been faced with great integrity or dedication by Nationalists or Republicans. It will not be achieved in a hurry or easily.
It is about time that we at least started talking together about how to live together. There is nothing to be lost by that. Let us remember that we are doing so in the context of this Government and Parliament and the Irish Government and Parliament, together with 10 other Governments and Parliaments in western Europe, having taken a decision which is much more far-reaching in its effect on the lives of the people in Ireland than the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Not a whimper has been heard from anyone in Northern Ireland about that. It will transform relationships within Ireland and rapidly break down barriers that have gone up since 1920.
The challenge to us and our fellow citizens—the Unionists—is to put our stamp on this change. We can do so only by sitting down together and accepting the invitation that has been issued to us.

Sir John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I recognise the sincerity of his views about the island of Ireland, although most of the solutions that he recommended will probably not be received with sympathy by Conservative Members.
I wish to refer to some of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. My constituency and the whole House share his admiration for the courage of the security forces. I pay my own little tribute to the courage of the school bus driver who, despite the most severe incapacity after the dreadful bomb yesterday, almost managed to perform a miracle. We are all proud of him.
My right hon. Friend mentioned the opportunities for industry in Northern Ireland. Many efforts have been made over the years, but so many Secretaries of State have not been able to see round the corner. My right hon. Friend is lucky enough to be able to see round it—or, perhaps, to see over the hill—after many years of promises. We are delighted to know that industry is picking up and that job prospects are improving. That must have the approval of every hon. Member who is interested in Northern Ireland.
Over the years we have heard about the terrible problems that successive Secretaries of State have had to face. We can recall one Secretary of State after another having to make important speeches to the House and a sombre House receiving them with great gravity. The debate has properly been almost solely about security. Despite all the grave promises by good, bad and indifferent Secretaries of State in Conservative and Labour Governments, the security situation in Northern Ireland is at least as bad as ever. According to many experts it is probably worse today.
Before dealing with the possible cause of that, I should like to speak about the upsurge in industrial activity in Northern Ireland. We congratulate the Ministers who, over so many years, have put in such hard work. We know about the slog and the backroom work, and about the exhibitions that some of us have been lucky enough to visit to see all the wonderful plans for Belfast. Those plans are now coming to fruition.
I hope that the Secretary of State will seriously consider the possibility of Harland and Wolff building the largest

passenger vessel in the world. That hope crosses party lines. There is no division about it, because it means jobs. There will be jobs in the building of the vessel, but. as my right hon. Friend rightly said in his analysis, there will also he jobs in the whole of the infrastructure of Northern Ireland. Those jobs will make an immense difference to Northern Ireland. To build the vessel in Belfast may be bending the rules and may involve a large sum that should be invested. But building it in Belfast will be a message of hope for the whole of the Province. When I say that, I bear in mind the farcical events and the big loss that was incurred in De Lorean.
I return to the cause of the present unrest and the terrible violence. As the Secretary of State said, every act of violence in Northern Ireland seems to plumb new lows. We have to face that, but what is the cause of the violence? It would be easy for some of my hon. Friends to say, although I am not saying it, "We told you so." Two or three years ago, some of us said that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would not work and that the trouble would get worse. I recognise that my right hon. Friend and the whole of his Front-Bench team are not only sincere Ministers but extremely conscientious and hard working. It is not because of their addiction to the Anglo-Irish Agreement that Northern Ireland is in its present position.
Some of us who objected to the agreement three years ago are justified in asking my right hon. Friend or the Minister who will reply about the effectiveness of the extradition procedures under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Some of us, mistakenly or not, were against the Anglo-Irish Agreement or had severe reservations about it. One of them was that we thought that the extradition procedure that was supposed to apply to terrorists south of the border could never be made to stick. Our big regret is that that reservation has so far proved to be well-founded.
It is very difficult to extradite a wanted man from the other side of the border to a court in the United Kingdom. Last week, despite the Government of the Republic wishing a terrorist to be sent to Northern Ireland, a justice exercised his discretion and decided that there was something wrong with the evidence and that extradition should not go ahead.
That simply is not good enough. I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and Northern Ireland Office Ministers to pay a little more attention to extradition and to examine how the extradition of terrorists from the Irish Republic to Britain works. I know the background, because I am lucky enough to have many good friends at the Dublin bar and on the Dublin law circuit. Many of them, whom I have known for many years, work for a company that is highly esteemed and has done a lot of work over the years for the Dublin Government. Several members of the company have become judges on the Dublin circuit.
For the past five or six years, members of the legal profession have had to have their names removed from the telephone book. Their addresses are so confidential that it is impossible to obtain them. The reason is that in the past five or six years the companies with good old indigenous Irish names, whose barristers, attorneys and so on have served the Dublin Government through difficult times for many years—particularly in the past 10 or 20 years—and have done their will have been subject to the most dreadful intimidation. It is as bad as anything in the North of


Ireland. They have often had to have Gardai or special branch protection and in some cases they have had to leave the district where they have lived for 40 years.
We must realise that when the justice made his decision last week, he may have had to bear in mind what had happened to many of his colleagues in Dublin legal circles. When we apply for extradition, we must appreciate the problems that justices in Eire, and in Dublin in particular, face if they are honest and brave enough to send a murderer back to face just retribution in Great Britain.

Mr. Martin Flannery: When I listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) engaging in his hour-long tirade, I wished that the British people could have heard him. If ever a person did a great disservice—even to his own cause—it was the hon. Gentleman by his tirade. [Interruption.]He makes everybody in the Chamber feel moderate. [Interruption.]He will not even shut up now and let me speak. That is his way, but I shall get on with what I want to say.
Direct rule was introduced precisely because of the attitude that had been manifested tonight. Some Unionists are not quite like that. There seems to be a forgetfulness about what they did. In all my years in the House I have never heard the Unionists admit that they ever did any wrong to the minority community. Never do they admit it. They are so self-righteous. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster frightens the IRA, but by God, he frightens me. His attitude is the attitude that resulted in direct rule.
One or two points have been made here on many occasions, but they should be repeated, because they must not be forgotten. The Unionist majority in the North came about only because a line was drawn by the then British Government, who gave way to blackmail and the threat of violence. That line satisfied the Ulster Unionist leaders at the time because it gave them an inbuilt majority. Those people were not like the ordinary people on this side of the water. There were two separate communities—one the oppressed and the others the oppressors. There is every sign that, but for direct rule, that oppression would still be going on.
On Friday, we shall be debating the White Paper on unemployment. I was looking at it only a short time ago, and it bluntly says that the oppression still goes on. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) spoke to me before he left and I told him that I am not religious, so I am not fighting for the Catholics or for any other religious group. I am fighting for justice and I would fight just as hard for a Protestant minority that was subjected to such oppression. There seems no desire to give justice. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said that we should set an example and that instead of there being only 14 candidates for the Northern Ireland ministerial posts, there should be 36.
Direct rule came about because of the appalling lack of democracy exercised over the minority by the majority. That had the inevitable result of violence. After pressure from the Unionist leaders, there was a civil rights march, which was attacked by a bunch of thugs. That thuggery against the minority is still latent. After 1969 and the attack on the civil rights march, it became obvious that the

North could no longer be ruled in the old, undemocratic way, and that it was not willing to be ruled in that way. Those of us who have always believed in a united Ireland know that, ultimately, that must come about. However, we are a long way away from that because of the implied threat of violence, the same threat that occurred in the 1920s. The minority community, which has chafed against the sectarian anti-democracy of the Unionist majority since it all began, reacted against the violence, but it is clear that nothing will change.
The IRA and the opposing paramilitary groups have been given a reason for their resistance. After 1969, when nothing happened to give the oppressed justice, it became clear that paramilitary groups would emerge and a new IRA came about. To this day, paramilitary groups abound, and we must be aware that paramilitary groups on the other side from the IRA carry out exactly the same degradations. We have made it clear that we are appalled by what the IRA has done recently. To accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) of colluding with any form of violence is an insult, and a low and nasty abuse. We all know that the SDLP is doing its best, in the interests of justice, peace and fairness, and that its members would deplore, and have deplored on every possible occasion, violent acts such as those that occur all too often.
What are the conditions for devolved government, devolution or whatever it is called? There is no sign that devolved government would do anything to rectify the situation if it were introduced now. The Unionists have been split wide open under the hammer blows of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Most of them want to return to the old Stormont that created the mess that now confronts us. They want to do exactly what they have done in the past. Whenever we attempt to make them acknowledge that their actions in the past were wrong and created all the problems that we face, they refuse to say one word about the lack of justice for the minority community.
That minority community is ready for reconciliation, but not one word that could be construed as a sign of reconciliation has come from the Unionists tonight. It is clear that the Unionists wish to return to the old Stormont with the same old Stormont mentality. That cannot be done, and for as long as that is the position there must, sadly, be direct rule.
The Unionists think that any democratic practice that helps both communities means that we are heading towards a united Ireland. I believe that that will happen, and to seek to stop any democratic move now because it is thought to be leading towards a united Ireland shows a disgraceful blindness that worries us all. The Unionists are extremely angry whenever these issues are raised. They refuse to admit that something went wrong in the past. That is a clear sign that nothing would be changed if they were left to their own devices.
We are trying to persuade all the communities in Northern Ireland to enter into discussions. Unfortunately, there are divisions, and that fact became as clear as daylight when the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, argued in the most sectarian manner for a statelet independent of the rest of the United Kingdom as a means of escaping the realities.
Where do we go from here? The obstacles are tremendous. One side in Northern Ireland would suggest that they cannot be overcome, but a failure to do so will


sustain the paramilitarists on both sides of the community. It is in the interests of us all that we should try to ensure that there are regular discussions. I often say to those who are involved in the troops-out movement that the troops will leave only when there is a political situation that admits that no one will be killed when they are withdrawn.
The arguments advanced by the Unionists strengthen the troops-out movement as well as the attitudes of the paramilitarists on both sides of the community. Every gesture of reconciliation is interpreted by the Unionists as a treacherous act. That is their reaction to the honest folk who are trying to engage in reconciliation. Do they believe that reconciliation and democratic procedures are steps to a united Ireland? It is not clear to me and many of my hon. Friends that we are anywhere near anything of that sort. To struggle against democratic practices on that basis involves the use of unacceptable excuses. If the Unionists believe that reconciliation and democratic procedures will lead inevitably to a united Ireland, we shall never have reconciliation.
At some stage, all the parties in Northern Ireland must enter into discussions. That must occur. A large measure of agreement will have to be arrived at before devolved government of any form can be considered. It is time that we proceeded with reconciliation, as that is the deadly enemy of the paramilitarists. Democracy is their deadly enemy. It is sad that there is little democracy flowing to us from the Unionists.

Mr. Peter Robinson: In some respects the debate is a fraud. We are purportedly debating an interim period extension, but everyone knows that Northern Ireland is governed under an arrangement that was entered into without any legislation appearing before the House and without any accountability to the House. That was the result of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. There is not an absolute system of direct rule. The interim period extension that is proposed cannot be taken in isolation from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, which means that the decision for the House will be based very much on the agreement itself. That is currently the position of my colleagues.
I should like to respond to certain of the comments made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—though unfortunately in his absence. He sought to give an analysis, albeit a brief one, of the position as seen by the nationalist community. I follow him by giving an equally brief analysis of the Unionist perspective. Although it will be readily recognised that the two do not coincide, the fact that we can hear, or at least read, what the other section of the community sees as being the problem and its solution might in itself be a starting point.
I speak as someone who may be described as a child of the troubles. I entered politics at almost the very time when the first stone was thrown, when the first injury occurred, and when the streets were filled with people unhappy at the arrangements then pertaining.
I joined a party that was not the Government party and which has never been in government. Therefore, it is removed from much of the criticism that was voiced by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—criticism which, if he thought about it for a moment, has been levelled against the Government. They are still being accused of discrimination. The cries have not stopped

from those same sources because the Unionists are not in control in Northern Ireland. There are more calls for inquiries now than when there was a Unionist Government. However, it is not my task to defend past Unionist Governments. As I have said, my party was the official Opposition, so I can safely leave any such defence in the hands of others.
As someone who grew up in those years, I know that there are certain lessons of history that one cannot deny or escape. If one tries to do so, it is at one's peril. Whether or not Unionists like it—and the likelihood is that they will not—there are facts relating to the fall of the Stormont parliament that stand at this moment in time. The reasons why it fell are not to be found in the comments of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) concerning alleged discrimination. It fell because it did not have the consent of the whole community.
That consent was withheld for one reason or another by the minority. Many an institution has followed since then. There was the power-sharing executive, which fell because it did not have the consent of the majority. One initiative after another has been scuppered because one section of the community could not gain the consent and support of the other. We could go on until the present generation dies out and our descendants take over, and if we do not achieve a system of government that has the consent of both sections of the community, no doubt the hon. Member for Belfast, East in the year 2020 could make a speech almost identical to that which I am making now.

Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that when he speaks about "alleged discrimination", he is speaking about the heart of the matter? It is not a question of alleged discrimination but of real discrimination that has built up over a long period. It is precisely the policies being pursued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, arid in particular that which we shall be debating on Friday regarding fair employment, that offer a degree of hope within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Mr. Robinson: I could follow the hon. Gentleman down that line. I could tell him that more than 50 per cent. of the houses in the public sector were inhabited by members of the Roman Catholic faith, and that therefore there was discrimination against the Protestant community. I could say that after three years of touting for business in the form of people claiming that they had been discriminated against, the fair employment agency could find only five cases—and they were not all members of the Roman Catholic community.
The purpose of my speech, however, is to deal not with discrimination but with our constitutional difficulties and the security problems that flow directly from them. The failures are caused not so much by discrimination as by a difference of identity. The hon. Member for Foyle said that the Unionists had chosen to live separately from the other people on the island, whatever their reason. A Unionist would say that the nationalists had chosen to live separately from the rest of the people in the British Isles. How we see the problem depends on our angle of vision. What cannot be escaped is that a problem of identity exists, as does the problem of creating a system of government in Northern Ireland with which the two sections of the community can identify, and to which they can give allegiance and support.
It is not particularly difficult to analyse the problem in simple terms. What is difficult is achieving that system of government. I must tell the House, and particularly the Government Front Bench, that no agreement between London and Dublin—however well-meaning either or both of those parties may be—can ever achieve agreement for the people of Northern Ireland.
In the past I have used the analogy of a dispute within a marriage. If a husband and wife are not getting on well, the in-laws can meet as often as they want and arrive at whatever conclusions they please, but unless the couple themselves sit down to work out their differences and the solutions to their problems, there will be no happy marriage thereafter. Similarly, London and Dublin will not solve our problems in Northern Ireland. The problem is in Northern Ireland, so the solution must be in Northern Ireland as well. That is why I urge, along with many others, that we find an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. For me the agreement does not provide a framework; it provides a straitjacket in which there is no possibility of achieving the flexibility that could bring agreement with other parties.
The Secretary of State should learn from the example of the Opposition Front Bench—and it is not often that I ask him to do that. The Opposition have a precise view about the future of Northern Ireland. They admit openly that they wish for a united Ireland; they recognise none the less that there must be stable government there. While they like the Anglo-Irish Agreement and would like everyone else to support it, they recognise that if agreement can be reached in a better way it is foolish to continue with an agreement that—in my terms at least—has failed. If the constitutional parties can come up with a better alternative, one that they are both happy to support, surely the Government must be prepared even at this stage to encourage it, or at least consider it constructively and positively.
That is what Unionists ask them to do. Until now we have had no clear and precise sign that the Government were willing to consider an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. If they were to say that, they would begin to transform the political situation in Northern Ireland. They would breathe into it some hope that an alternative could be achieved. Judging from the comments of people engaged in what are euphemistically known as the talks about talks, there is not an insurmountable problem in reaching an agreement or finding some formula whereby the various manifesto commitments of the Unionist party in relation to the non-implementation of the agreement during negotiations, can be agreed. If that is not a problem, surely we can move to agreement, or at least a meeting between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland when the SDLP has concluded its dialogue with Sinn Fein.
I am not attacking the SDLP for the sake of it. I want to see a positive and constructive dialogue between the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Foyle is not present. I am even more sorry that he avoided answering my intervention. Whether he likes it or not, dialogue between the SDLP and the Sinn Fein presents a difficulty and a barrier for Unionists. Unionists cannot be part of a dialogue with the SDLP while the SDLP is talking to Sinn Fein.
In laymen's terms, the SDLP will be seen as the intermediary between the IRA and the Unionists. Unionists are not prepared to have a dialogue, or even to be associated with a dialogue with the IRA. Whether or not SDLP Members understand our difficulties, I ask them to realise that it is a barrier to dialogue between the Unionists and the SDLP, and as such it presents a barrier to progress towards an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and towards the peace, stability and reconciliation that the people of Northern Ireland deserve, and that I trust all politicians in Northern Ireland want.
They must recognise, although they are slow to admit it openly, that whatever the Anglo-Irish Agreement might mean symbolically to the minority communities, it has not achieved what they hoped it would achieve. Tonight its short-term goal of whether it has obviated the need for megaphone diplomacy—I think that those were the Secretary of State's words—is to be tested. It has not done that. The same difficulties exist between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the Irish Republic. Those difficulties still pertain to the present day.
The agreement's long-term objectives were peace, stability and reconciliation. Before the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed in November 1985, the graph of violence steadily and happily had been going down. From 1972 to 1985 the number of deaths occurring through terrorist violence had been decreasing every year. After the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, the graph started to go up.
As for peace, the statistics bear evidence that we are not on the road to peace through the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The lack of political stability affects economic stability and it is quite clear that there is no strength within the Anglo-Irish Agreement to create stability in our Province. I believe that divisions have been greater during our recent troubles.
I do not believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement ever could have been presumed to bring reconciliation, when it was created as a result of bypassing the Unionist community. Reconciliation with the Unionists cannot come from leaving them aside and refusing to consult them. The whole process of reconciliation involves bringing people along, but that did not occur. The excuse was, "If we had talked to them, they would not have agreed." That does not seem to be the way to achieve agreement or reconciliation between the communities of Northern Ireland.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement is a failure in its long-term and short-term objectives. I believe that there is no advantage for the SDLP within the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It might like to see the discomfort of Unionists, but the agreement has not achieved anything which it could not have achieved by negotiating with Unionists if there was administration at Stormont or if it had negotiated with the Unionist leadership.
I must tell Nationalist politicians and their representatives in the House that the way forward in Northern Ireland is to have agreement with the Unionist community, and the best way in which to do that is to conclude the dialogue with Sinn Fein, which cannot succeed on the basis of promises, or hopes, of the violence being stopped. The IRA has no intention of stopping violence voluntarily. Its raison d'être is violence. Its position in society and its clout comes through violence.


Sadly, much of the SDLP's clout comes through the IRA's violence. Whereas one can make concessions to the SDLP, one cannot to the IRA.
I want progress in Northern Ireland. I want it through the dialogue that the Secretary of State has suggested. I want it on the basis of an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the SDLP ending its contact with the IRA. The Unionist leaders' outline proposals have been put to the Secretary of State. They do not set the clock back. The hon. Member for Hillsborough is time locked, but Unionists are not.
We have put forward positive proposals, and not for the first time. We asked to talk to the SDLP when it refused to talk to us. We were prepared to take part in the Government initiative in the Northern Ireland Assembly, when the SDLP boycotted it. We put forward proposals in the Assembly but, unfortunately, those who co-operated with the Government and tried to make the system work were punished, whereas those who boycotted the system and abstained were rewarded, just as those who bombed and shot were rewarded with concessions under the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Government should include Unionists in the process to get an alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement which achieves peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
I ask the SDLP to end its flirtation with the IRA. It should start constructive dialogue with constitutional parties. It has indicated that progress can be made only by the agreement of the constitutional parties. I ask it to take that step. I trust that the next hon. Member to speak will be the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), and perhaps he will give us some clear idea that that is what will happen.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) for catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for me.
I was accused earlier of having a great respect for British parliamentary traditions. I plead guilty. I come from an area and from a family which know only too well that Parliament is a substitute for war. I know that unless we have parliamentary democracy, however deficient we may regard this forum, with which to deal with problems, we will have war-war rather than jaw-jaw.
I have enormous respect for the parliamentary traditions of the House and its practices. That might be the key to some of the nastiness that we saw earlier. There is one thing which Unionists who remain in the House and I have in common—I do not include my colleagues, who can speak for themselves. While retaining that admiration and respect for the traditions of the House, I want not British troops to withdraw from Ireland but Irish political troops to withdraw from the House.
Part of the Unionist problem, and part of the Nationalist problem, is that we are not part of it here. We are not part of the tradition or the machinery. That shines through every time we hear a Unionist speak in the House. He is crying out, "For heaven's sake, will somebody please like me? Will somebody please treat me as the equal that you tell me I am?" But the House does not do that because the hon. Members for Belfast, East and, for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and myself are all Paddies here.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): Nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Mallon: I shall come to the Attorney-General later.
We shall be used when it suits the majority opinion in the House, whether that be Conservative, as at present, or Labour, which not so long ago was destroying the North of Ireland. That point unites us. It is one that we must remember when we approach the debate, because it is fundamental.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that he believed that members of my party like to see the discomfort of Unionists over the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Nothing could be further from the truth. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that with all the sincerity I can muster. Through the years we have lived with too much discomfort ourselves—we still live with it in many ways—to get any enjoyment out of seeing any other Irish Member suffering discomfort as a result of what the British Parliament has decided. That could be a bonding factor between us. We should realise that and stop the nonsense—some of which we saw today—which demeans not just the Unionist argument but the whole political process in which we are taking part.
I sought this opportunity, as I did during last year's debate, to speak to my colleagues of the Unionist tradition, not to Ministers. I seek to speak to them because, irrespective of what happens constitutionally or what is decided by Governments in Westminster, Dublin or Strasbourg, one thing will not change. I will be living beside the same neighbours from the Unionist and Protestant traditions. We have lived there all our lives and we shall continue to do so. That is an immutable fact and there is nothing that the Government can do to change it. There is nothing that an Irish Government or any political force on earth—be it a constitutional or paramilitary force—can do to change that.
If that is a basic fact, there must be a basic conclusion. The sooner we work out a means of living together with respect for both our traditions—a respect which will be to our mutual advantage—the sooner we shall be able to present our strength to this Parliament, the Dublin Parliament and everybody else who believes that, because of our divisions as a people, we are not seriously able to cope with our problems. That is our challenge—not the people sitting on the Government Front Bench or in Dublin. That is the reality we have not yet harnessed.
I take this opportunity to ask the people of the Unionist tradition and their public representatives; as Paddies, let us show the Government that we have two feet on which to stand, heads on our shoulders with which to think and certain political skills.
We do not have to live with the condescension that we often see in political life. We can tell the Government that we are tired of being patted on the head and told, "Good chappies, this will do you until next year," or, "You will get an hour and a half to debate something which is crucially important," or, "You can have a system of justice which is deficient or a job creation scheme which is a nonsense."
We do not have to take such things and we should not do so. That would be the real nationalism which is common to those who call themselves Unionists and those who at present call themselves Nationalists. Our political challenge is to harness that nationalism. If we do so, we shall become the masters of our destiny. We would then not be condescended to by anybody. No one would make


decisions for us. We would be expressing for the first time the one thing in which I believe and which I hold dear in political life, which is that all people have a right to self-determination and that everybody has a right to determine their own future. As Irish people living in the north of Ireland, we have a right to do that. We should take that right and work on it in such a way that we can end the awful trauma that we have all lived through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) referred to some of the symptoms of the disease. They should not be dismissed easily, because many of the symptoms that we have seen and that we see today have prevented political development and dialogue. I refer to the findings of the Northern Ireland Police Authority. I shall not do so scathingly, as other hon. Members have done, and will not refer to the majority of one, but ask the House to consider whether it is not an absolute tragedy that the Chief Constable and two deputy chief constables of the police service in the north of Ireland do not have the respect or confidence of their own Police Authority or of a large section of the community.
I am not asking them to resign, as has been suggested earlier. However, the political decision should be taken to ask them to go because it is shameless and demeaning that those men remain in their positions, given the findings of their own Police Authority, which is very much biased towards their position. The decent and honourable thing would have been for those three men to resign immediately. I ask the Secretary of State, who is ultimately responsible for security and policing in the north of Ireland, to have the courage to ask them to leave because they no longer have the credibility to exercise authority.
If we are to have proper policing—I want to see that—and a proper system of justice—I want to see that also—let us get rid of the charlatans and those who, more than any others, have debased the name of policing. Let us not allow constables X, Y and Z, as they will be named, to carry the can for decisions taken by senior police officers. That is the sympton which is holding back political progress.
I have 20 parliamentary questions which, despite the political traditions, I cannot table. There is no way in which I can table them because they ask when the inquest on an innocent man who was shot six years ago will be held. There is no parliamentary machinery whereby I can do that. The first questions I would ask are, "Is there to be an inquest six years after that death? If there is, will a jury be called for it? Could we please be told the names of the witnesses who will be called? Will John Stalker be called? Will Mr. Sampson be called? Who will be called from the Greater Manchester police service or the West Yorkshire police service? Will sergeant X, Constable Y and Constable Z, who said in court under oath that senior police officers had asked them to commit perjury, be asked to give evidence? Will the Chief Constable and the deputy chief constables be called to give evidence? What will happen to that one basic piece of, let us call it, justice?" There is no way that I can table those questions.
Will the Secretary of State say what he will do about a Chief Constable who since 15 February has refused to give evidence to the coroner of Armagh? How many times has the coroner asked for that evidence since that date? With the weight of his political authority, what will the right

hon. Gentleman say to the Chief Constable about that evidence? I suggest that he says, "Put that evidence on the coroner's desk tomorrow morning before you put your resignation on mine." I am angry about this, because it goes to the heart of all these relationships and all the political development that may be possible.
I have two further points to make, not harshly but forcefully. People of the Church of Ireland, the Catholic Church, the Presbyterian Church and others have been united by the education proposals. They have brought unity to the North of Ireland such as has not existed for years. They have surpassed anything that Barry McGuigan or Jack Charlton achieved. Those proposals have united the people of the north of Ireland. I do not want to make a meal of this, but for God's sake, the Government must listen: those people are not saying what they are saying because they do not like the education Minister or because of any prejudices. It is because the Minister is trampling on a fundamental part of their lives. He is importing an ethic into education which is frightening people of all denominations. He will not improve the education system by trampling on the dreams and fears of those people, and I ask him to think again.
Finally, will the Minister honour the commitments that he gave in this House to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), myself and others about prison releases? We know their effect on the family, the street, the townland, the village and throughout the community. I am sorry to say that the Minister has not honoured those commitments given both publicly and privately across the table. He has let them slide and has not done what he should have done. He has not kept his commitment in relation to prisoners sentenced at the Secretary of State's pleasure and life prisoners.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman was not present at the beginning of the debate when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that we would conclude our consideration of SOSPs and announce our conclusions shortly.

Mr. Mallon: I was here at the beginning and did not miss any of the debate. I heard what the Secretary of State said. The understanding—a substantial part of creating a thaw in the communities—has not been kept. With the greatest respect, I ask the Minister to proceed with it.
Throughout the debate we have heard about reconciliation, and I should like a definition of that word. I do not like it, because it does not mean anything any more. There is no problem in reconciling sections of the middle-class people in the North of Ireland, Protestants and Catholics. That is no problem on the Malone road. The Malone road and the Lower Malone road will be reconciled without any problems.
If the word "reconcile" means anything, it means reconciling those on the Falls road with those on the Shanklin road; those in South Armagh with those in Bangor; and those in the Creggan and Derry with those in Ballymena. If that is to be achieved, we have to talk even to those we would not wish to take tea with. If we avoid doing that, we are simply choosing the easy option—and none of us can afford to do that.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) asked whether there was a better alternative to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have to ask him, and other hon. Members who asked the same question, whether there is a better alternative and what else could be put in its place in the light of the background to the problems of the English in Ireland, the Scots in Irelard and the United Kingdom's relationship with Northern Ireland. All that could be put in place of the agreement is hopelessness, despair and violence—the sort of terrorism that we witnessed only yesterday.
Listening to the speeches tonight——

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman has not been here most of the time.

Mr. Cash: That is not so. I have been here for a substantial part of the proceedings. I have taken a considerable interest in Northern Ireland affairs since I came to the House. I will not be diverted by the hon. Lady.
Part of the difficulty lies in the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East about discrimination and consent. I have no intention of making a long speech, but it is important that when the hon. Gentleman speaks of the need for reconciliation he—indeed, all hon. Members—should bear in mind the reality of what has lain at the root of the problems of Northern Ireland, not merely for the past 10 or 15 years or for decades or generations, but for hundreds of years. It is the problem of discrimination.
It is not enough to talk broadly and generally about solving that problem. The route chosen by the Government will, for the first time in the history of the Irish problem, attempt seriously to tackle the questions that lie at the root of discrimination and prejudice. It is a nuts and bolts procedure. When listening to speeches about the agreement, I am sometimes left wondering whether hon. Members have actually read it. The machinery exists for a practical step-by-step approach towards changing the manner in which the people of Northern Ireland treat one another.
Last week the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and I were asked to go to Dublin to speak about the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It was rather more of a discussion than a debate. It was curious that in addition to the hon. Gentleman and me there were representatives from both the Government and the Opposition in Ireland. It had been intended that the audience should be composed largely of moderates, but it was significantly packed by members of Sinn Fein and the IRA. It was interesting that IRA members listened to speakers on the platform who, within the acceptance of the agreement, were prepared to put forward constructive ideas aimed at helping the people of Northern Ireland.
Before I went into that debate, I went to the Dail, where I heard a speech by two members on the question of extradition. They did not know that I was there and they were criticising in strong and vehement terms the failure of the extradition arrangements that we witnessed when McVeigh went free the other day.
The point in a nutshell is that on both sides of the water there are people of good will. On both sides of the border between North and South, in Northern Ireland and in Eire, there are people of good will. If we adopt the step-by-step practical approach of the Anglo-Irish

Agreement, we shall solve those problems because there are people who are interested in achieving a reasonable settlement.
Therefore, I ask those who have criticised the agreement to bear in mind that centuries of prejudice arid bias are at last being tackled with a step-by-step approach, to give it the support that it needs and also to support the order tonight.

Ms. Clare Short: As has been said, we approach the 14th year of direct rule and this is the 19th year since troops were sent onto the streets of Northern Ireland following the civil rights movement which brought down Stormont and the rotten settlement that it represented.
The civil rights movement was completely peaceful, asking for an end to discrimination, justice in the allocation of housing, the end of gerrymandering, and so on. There was a brutal and violent response within Northern Ireland to those decent demands, and the police and other forces failed to protect the minority community.
It was because of the failure of that settlement that British troops went in. At that time Britain said that we were ashamed of what we had done since partition. We had turned our back on Northern Ireland and left it to Stormont. We had allowed discrimination and all the injustice to fester. Conservative and Labour parties are equally responsible for that. However, we said that it would go on no longer. We would have direct rule and start to put matters right. We would end the discrimination and injustice and have justice within Northern Ireland.
Here we are nearly 20 years later and what is the picture? The Secretary of State has tried to put a bright light on the government of Northern Ireland and what: is going on there, but the truth is that the situation there is a disaster.
In those 19 years, 3,000 people have died, 20,000 have been maimed and injured, the discrimination in employment is serious and has got no better, the criminal justice system is not fair and cannot hold up its head in the world, unemployment in some areas of Northern Ireland is outrageous and there is recruiting of young people by paramilitary organisations on both sides of the sectarian divide. Britain has spent large sums on seeking a security solution in Northern Ireland, building prisons and recruiting security forces. Yet the economy collapses, nothing is any better and there is no hope of progress.
The Secretary of State, in a major part of his speech, advocated devolution within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As he spoke, the leader of the Official Unionist party said, "No way. We will not go for devolution within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement." I do not understand why the leader of the Democratic Unionist party was not called, to represent his party's position, but, as I understand it, that party will not accept devolution within the terms of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. So it is not on. It will not work, but that is what the Secretary of State advocates. It will not help, either. There is no chance of progress and there will be no solution in the method for which he argued.
It is the view of British generals and the British military that there is no military solution to the problem of Northern Ireland. They can never defeat, or be defeated


by, terrorism. It is the publicly stated view of the IRA that it can never succeed by the use of force, or be defeated by it. Senior representatives of the IRA have stated that publicly. The dreadful future that confronts us is that the present state of affairs could continue indefinitely—with its bloodshed, death, cruelty, inequality and discrimination. That is the most likely prospect.
An important voice has not yet been expressed in this matter because of a malfunction in the democratic system of this country—the voice of the British people. There is a mounting desire and demand in Britain for withdrawal from Northern Ireland. Everyone knows that: it is heard in meetings and pubs around the country, and opinion polls have measured its strength for 10 years now.
No major political party in Britain advocates withdrawal; it is seen as illegitimate in the mainstream political debate. Yet more than half the British people say, time and again, that they want to get out of Northern Ireland. That is a growing part of the truth.
To the Unionist parties who say that we cannot force them out of the United Kingdom, I say: you cannot force us to stay in Northern Ireland. You cannot force us to send our troops there and to keep using plastic bullets to blind people and kill children. The British people are becoming unwilling to stay. That is part of the unspoken political reality that everyone knows.
The reason why I abstained in the vote on the Anglo-Irish Agreement was that the root of the problem is that the partition of Ireland, and the Northern Irish statelet, have no democratic legitimacy. The northern state was created because Unionism threatened violence to get it. That is part of the problem. The border was gerrymandered and the artificial majority there was maintained—because there was always the fear that the Unionists would not remain a majority—through crude discrimination and gerrymandering. Leaving aside the injustice of partition, if the people born in Northern Ireland since then had been allowed to grow up in equal numbers, and if discrimination had not done the job of forcing a differing emigration rate, there would now be a Nationalist majority there. That is why the poison of discrimination and division is part of the border and of partition.
I do not accept the legitimacy of the Six Counties or of partition, or the legitimacy of the way in which the majority has been kept a majority. So I am not willing to give it the respect due to a democratically legitimate group.
On present estimates, according to work done for the New Irish Forum by independent academic experts, there is likely to be a Nationalist majority in Northern Ireland in 2016, which, in terms of the history of Ireland, is not far off. My view, which is representative of the bulk of British opinion but which cannot be expressed in the House without attracting allegations that the person voicing it is somehow a covert supporter of the IRA, is that we should honestly tell the people of Northern Ireland the truth. I think it was the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who spoke at enormous length and showed the less attractive face of the Democratic Unionists, who said that Unionist people respect the truth. But they know that Britain wants to withdraw from Northern Ireland. The British people say so; so does the

Labour party. Our policy is to seek the reunification of Ireland but not to leave unless a majority in the North accept that.
We say openly that we aspire to withdrawal. Conservatives would love to get out of Northern Ireland if they could do it without turning somersaults and leaving chaos behind. We want to get out. I say to the people of Northern Ireland, "You are not British, you are Irish and belong to the history of that country. There could be a much better country there for all of you if you worked together for a better future and better government."
We should say that we wish to withdraw and will back all initiatives that will bring the Irish people together. We should say that Britain will back anything that they agree on. We should use all our influence and resources and so on to seek to withdraw and to seek to encourage agreement between the Irish people about the future. We should come clean. There is no quick-fit simple solution. Britain cannot withdraw unless she leaves behind a stable settlement, because that would be worse than the current situation—if that is possible.
Democratic Unionist Members have hinted heavily that an independent Northern Ireland is seriously on their agenda, and if Britain will not give them everything, that is what they will go for. That was hinted at more than once in the debate. How irresponsible can those hon. Members be about their own people and the place in which they live? They should look at the present trouble in Northern Ireland and imagine how much worse it could be.
Everyone knows that as an independent country Northern Ireland would not be viable. Without the continuing subsidy, there would be terrible problems for the economy. Everyone also knows that the very forces that cause the violence and the bloodshed would be inflamed and enlarged by any suggestion of an independent Northern Ireland. There would be more violence and more exchanges of population and burnings out. How can responsible politicians who represent Northern Ireland constituencies possibly advocate a solution that will bring even more bloodshed, terror and death to their part of the world? It is deeply irresponsible and they should be ashamed of putting it forward.
It is interesting that in Ireland in the post Anglo-Irish Agreement context there are all sorts of strands that could point the way towards a new settlement. The talks between the SDLP and Sinn Fein are of enormous importance. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster spoke for an hour at enormous volume. Perhaps he would sit quietly and let me express my few thoughts. How can he say he deplores the deaths and not say that these talks are worth a try? If the talks succeed and the IRA is persuaded to stop using violence in Northern Ireland, would that not be better for his people and for the people who live near the border? Should we not all applaud and welcome that?

Rev. William McCrea: Would the hon. Lady address her mind to the fact that Sinn Fein has said that in these talks the SDLP has not asked the IRA to stop its murder campaign? The SDLP spokesman told a Belfast newspaper that all the SDLP wanted was a sort of curbing of the present violence.

Mr. Hume: That is totally untrue.

Ms. Short: The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster tries to play games with words about an issue of such seriousness.

Rev. William McCrea: My people are dying.

Ms. Short: That is the very point I am trying to make to the hon. Gentleman. He says that his constituents are dying on the border. I know that there has been an enormous number of deaths there. That is dreadful. We have a chance for that to come to an end and the hon. Gentleman denounces it.

Mr. Hume: As an example of the integrity of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), I can tell the House that on the very day of the statement that he complained about in the Belfast News Letter he met me in the corridors of the BBC. I told him that no such statement had been made. I immediately rang the Belfast News Letter and asked whether if any SDLP spokesman had made such a statement the paper would please name him. I told the News Letter it could take it from me as leader of the SDLP that there was no truth whatever in the statement and I asked them to print that.

Ms. Short: There are some positive strands. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster does not seem to be able to take them up, but others will. The first is the talks between the SDLP and Sinn Fein, and I do not see how any hon. Member could fail to wish those talks well. They will improve life for everyone in Northern Ireland if they succeed. We must all hope that they succeed. I certainly do.
The second sign of hope lies in the very alienation of Unionism from British institutions. The Unionists demand the right to remain British, yet they despise and hate the House of Commons and the way in which the Anglo-Irish Agreement was voted through. They rail and shout and demand the right to remain British, but only on their own terms; they must have it their own way. They shout and bluster, but they do not respect British institutions and they do not respect the decisions of the House. As that becomes clearer to them, they feel more and more alienated and separated from Britain.
At the same time, British public opinion sees the Unionists more and more clearly exposed as intransigent unreasonable people with whom it is impossible to deal. A

poll printed on the front page of the Daily Express a year or so ago showed that about 60 per cent. of the British people polled wanted out of Northern Ireland. When asked who were the most evil men in Northern Ireland, 70 per cent. named the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, 50 per cent. named Gerry Adams——

Rev. William McCrea: What about the IRA?

Ms. Short: I am telling the hon. Gentleman what the poll said; perhaps he could listen for a moment. Those are the facts. That is how things are perceived in this country. The leader of the hon. Gentleman's own party is considered to be more evil and dangerous than the leader of Sinn Fein. I am not saying that that is true. I am merely saying that it is the perception—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster shouted for an hour. Please could we ask him to stay quiet just for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that I can finish my speech?
Consider the positive strands—the alienation of Unionism and the possibility of an end to the use of violence by the IRA. In addition, the Unionists are so annoyed by the Anglo-Irish Agreement and about the British Government's speaking over their heads to Dublin that they increasingly talk about talking to Dublin themselves. It seem to me that the ingredients are there for an agreement between the Irish people about the future government of Ireland. We in Britain should say openly that we will back such an agreement every step of the way with all our influence and all our resources.
I have no doubt that Britain will withdraw from Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that that is what the British people want, and I know that the Unionists know it. The Unionists live in fear. They rail and shout and are negative. They threaten the use of violence if a change is made against their will. Instead, why do not we all openly admit our aspiration and work for a new settlement in Ireland that will bring a better future for all the people of Ireland? Let us spend the resources that are now being spent on security on building up the economy of Ireland, and giving jobs, hope and a decent future to all the people of Ireland—Catholic and Protestant, in the North and in the South.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Those of us who have sat through the whole debate will agree that it has been a wide-ranging debate. It has had its highs and its lows—[Interruption.]—and the bit in the middle. Parts of the debate have been depressing. What impressed me was the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) put his Nationalist position in a rational, dispassionate way. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) argued his position equally rationally and dispassionately. That suggests that, if they have the political will, representatives from both traditions can come together to discuss the issues rationally. If a flicker of hope arises from this debate, it arises from those two speeches.
I should like to pay my respects to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose sincerity in these matters always shines through. His obvious fervent desire for peace and reconciliation comes through, and I am sure that he works tirelessly—I was going to say ceaselessly, but I am sure that he has to sleep—to bring that about.
When I read the speech that he made during this debate last year, and listened to his speech today, I noticed that the Secretary of State has started to use this occasion—with due respect to the Ulster Unionists—as an occasion for a state of the Union message. He talks not just about direct rule but also about the economic and security situation and, if time permits, the social position. Therefore, we have an extremely wide-ranging debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Nr. McNamara) dealt with the general security situation, so I shall concentrate on some of the other points made by the Secretary of State. He is obviously pleased that he is able to refer to the steady improvement of the economy of Northern Ireland as a consequence of the growth throughout the United Kingdom. No one would deny the validity of that. However, I am concerned about the underlying fragility of the Northern Ireland economy and the underlying trend that it has always been the last part of the United Kingdom to benefit from economic growth, and the first to suffer when the economic downturn arrives. I am worried that the improvement of the past couple of years could disappear quickly when the next economic downturn comes.
As the Secretary of State knows and accepts, the unemployment level in Northern Ireland is unacceptably high, hovering around twice the national average. I urge him to continue to assist and promote policies that encourage further Government initiatives to develop economic opportunities in the North of Ireland. If economic growth there is to continue, it will need the consent of all parts of the community—both the majority and the minority. In particular, I urge the Secretary of State to be ready to listen to any group or individual, working in the private sector, the public sector or the voluntary sector, that has ideas and is prepared to offer advice as to how community economic development could take place. I ask him to interpret the position taken by the then Secretary of State in 1985 far more restrictively than hitherto. If the community is to be involved, all parts of it must be involved.
The Secretary of State knows that we condemn, with feeling and vehemence equal to his, the terrorist killings. The maiming of that young girl is unforgivable. It sickens me to hear the IRA's feeble excuse, "We are sorry about

the girl, we meant to get the bus driver," as though one can discriminate between the death or the maiming of one individual and another. The House shares my abhorrence of that and other atrocities in Northern Ireland.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), for not being here for the beginning of his speech, but I think he rehearsed yet again the arguments of devolution as against integration, and, not unnaturally in view of his opinion, he came down in favour of integration. He will know, because he was here in 1986 and I was not, that the Secretary of State answered that point then, beyond shadow of doubt. I shall refer later to that speech. It sets out clearly the arguments against integration and those in favour of a devolved assembly in the North of Ireland.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) referred to Labour party policy and the right of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom. We accept that Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom. There is no policy, or likely policy, of the Labour party that will force those people out of the United Kingdom against the wishes of the majority in the North of Ireland. I want that to be clear. I stated that that was the Opposition's position in reply to a taunt from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), and it gives me some pleasure to repeat the statement in response to the comments of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) argued against a devolved legislature and in favour of a devolved assembly. I am not sure what that means. It probably means that he does not want a subordinate parliament and instead would like a regional council of some sort within the North of Ireland. If that follows the logic of the hon. Member for Epping Forest, which leads to integration, I am opposed to the view of the hon. Member for Newbury, as I am to that of his hon. Friend.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) welcome two features of the parliamentary Labour party's policy. The hon. Gentleman supports our call for a judicial review of Stalker, which is one that we intend to continue to pursue, with, we hope, increasing strength and increasing parliamentary support. It is not an issue that will disappear. It is one that continues to cast a shadow over the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Whenever and wherever the RUC acts within the law, it will have our support. If the RUC is to have the full confidence of all the members of the community, it must be seen to have rid itself of the ghosts of the past. Those ghosts can be eradicated only through a judicial inquiry.
I was pleased also to hear the hon. Member for Mossley Hill say that he sees the Anglo-Irish Agreement as part of the process of reconciliation. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is the Labour party's position.
It is with some sorrow, if not distress, that I recall the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster. I have spent some happy hours—on occasions, days—with members of the Unionist tradition in the North of Ireland. It is a source of pleasure to me that the Unionists whom I have come across are in no way similar to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that even within the North of Ireland the hon. Gentleman is in a small minority. His arguments go beyond the bounds of logic. He wants Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and when the


Government and the Opposition state their positions the hon. Gentleman believes neither. If he cannot accept the facts as they are stated to him, it is difficult to begin to understand how any rational argument is ever likely to convince him of anything. I came to the conclusion at the end of his speech that his driving force was irrationality, not rationality. When he next speaks in this place, I hope that I am not the unfortunate person who has to reply on behalf of the Opposition.
I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle repeat his commitment to the cessation of violence, which is an objective we can all share. I shall repeat a point that I made about him and about the hon. Member for Belfast, East at the beginning of my speech. What impressed me about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle was his dispassionate analysis of the situation. He is a man who feels passionately about Ireland and its future, but who is able to speak about its problems in a dispassionate way. That should be a lesson to us all—but particularly to those right hon. and hon. Gentlemen whose passion at times overcomes their political powers.
The central question put again and again by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle was, how are the two communities in the North to live together in harmony with the Republic? He emphasised that their problems can only be resolved by rational discussion. I hope that the constitutional parties will get together and begin that rational consultation—sitting around a table together with the Secretary of State, rather than at separate tables.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough stated the Labour party's view when he spoke of being appalled at sectarian violence from whatever quarter—be it against the majority or the minority community. We condemn acts of terrorism as just that, no matter from which quarter they may emanate.
I have already paid tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast, East. He mentioned that political institutions in the North had failed due to lack of consensus. In his view, Stormont failed because the minority community withheld its consent, and the power-sharing Executive did so because the majority community withheld its consent. I draw this conclusion from his remarks. If he and his party are prepared to work together with the minority community, they can build the consent about future political institutions that has been denied them in the past. Success in achieving that objective is within his grasp and that of his party, as well as within the grasp of the SDLP and the official Unionists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) knows that I hold her in great respect and esteem. I accept her view that there can be no military solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. I accept also her point that withdrawal from Northern Ireland is a popularly held view. However, my own belief, which is also the official view of the parliamentary Labour party, is that withdrawal now would not help the processes of peace and reconciliation.
I echo the sense of shame arising from my hon Friend's reference to the events of August 1969. I remember them well. I was on a fellowship, working for a firm in Basle, when I switched on the television after returning home from work on that dreadful day. I saw the troops marching into Belfast, with bunting hanging out and flags waving. That gave me no pleasure whatsoever. It made me feel ashamed that the British Army was marching into any city, town or village, or any other part of the United Kingdom.

I share with my hon. Friend the desire to withdraw British troops from Northern Ireland, but that must be done at the right time, and with the consent of the people, who would suffer if British troops were withdrawn precipitously.
As my hon. Friend knows, our view is that such precipitous withdrawal could lead to further bloodshed and violence, and moreover—this would be the worst example of post-colonial oppression—could put the Republic under such severe financial and military pressure that it could do irreversible damage not just to the reputation of the United Kingdom and the people of the North of Ireland, but to the people and institutions of the Republic. For that if for no other reason, it should not be countenanced.

Ms. Short: When I talk about British withdrawal, I am not advocating withdrawal without a new political settlement. I am well aware that simply pulling the troops out would lead to more conflict and bloodshed. What is needed is a political settlement that reduces the cause of violence. Let me make it clear, for the record, that I know that the troops cannot be withdrawn without any other change being made, or the situation will become even worse than it is now.

Mr. Marshall: I am grateful for that clarification. If I misunderstood my hon. Friend's earlier comments, I apologise. I have much more sympathy with what she has just said, and, as she knows, it is much closer to the official Labour party's views than what I thought she said originally.
Every hon. Member regrets the need for the continuation of direct rule in Northern Ireland, but we must accept that until there is a measure of agreement on an alternative mode of government, direct rule must continue. We all recognise the unsatisfactory nature of it, which is highlighted first by the way in which the House deals with Northern Ireland business and secondly by the political vacuum that it creates at local level in the North of Ireland, and the arbitrary power that it puts into the hands of unelected officials there.
While I recognise those problems, my reaction is not to solve the first by making special arrangements for Northern Ireland business, or to solve the second by setting up a special Northern Ireland Committee. In my view, the existing difficulties should be used as a spur for the constitutional parties to recognise the way in which the political process is being abused, and to seek to remove that abuse by getting together to create a devolved assembly that could deal with the problems.
The House has an absolute right to determine the principles on which the future government of Northern Ireland should be based, in the light of the reality of what is happening. The reality is that two communities exist there side by side, and the overwhelming majority of people from both those communities simply want to live together in peace and bring up their families in decency. That natural desire, however, should not hide from us the fact that there are divisions between the two communities, and that those divisions run deep. They are the result of discrimination, and have themselves resulted in alienation.
The divisions and the alienation cannot be healed by rhetoric, threats or security measures alone. It is not possible to legislate away animosity between communities, particularly when it has existed for centuries, but it is


possible to create a framework in which animosity and a sense of grievance no longer have a fertile soil in which to grow. For that to happen, people need to have a sense of belonging in their community, a feeling that their identity is to be honoured and a belief that they have a stake in the future of their country.
Any arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland must take account of those facts and must be seen to be fair. The House of Commons will not support anything which does not establish fair and effective protection for the minority or which seeks to return to the hegemony of the past. People in Northern Ireland must recognise that the only solution on offer is devolution which involves both communities in the decision-making process.
In that context I should like to support the words of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on 19 June 1986. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and I see that I am likely to get that—I shall repeat his words:
The Government do not support, and would not be prepared to suggest, integration as a policy for Northern Ireland. To sugest that there is no difference between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom is to ignore completely the backgrond of different histories, traditions, community attitudes and political parties. These differences have evolved over centuries, and cannot simply be discussed"—
I would have used the word "dismissed", but "discussed" will do—
as minor variations that can be cast aside in a uniform Westminster package. There are fundamental objections."—[Official Report, 19 June 1986; Vol. 99, c. 1218]
I and my party agree absolutely with that point of view.
Politicians in Northern Ireland must recognise the political will of that statement and make their dispositions accordingly. My view is that the constitutional parties have the opportunity to determine their own form of devolved Government in Northern Ireland.
Finally, in the interests of all people in Northern Ireland, I sincerely hope that they will grasp the opportunity which is presented to them. For the record, if there is a Division this evening, we shall support the order.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Having had the privilege of listening to the debate from its inception, I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) that it has been wide-ranging. It has been an almost typical debate on Northern Ireland—full of emotion, thoughtful reflection on the political scene and restatement of political philosophies and policies.
If I do not do his political career any great damage by saying so, the House owes the hon. Member for Leicester, South thanks for his forthright affirmation on behalf of his party of support for the security forces, for helpfully pointing out that the dissatisfaction about direct rule should act as a spur for a better system and for making clear his party's commitment to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said and which he repeated to the House this evening.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) asked about the announcement on the Secretary of State's pleasure cases. He will have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of State's answer. He

helpfully said that the issue of devolution predates the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It has not emerged as a consequence of the agreement and it is not a concomitant of the agreement. It was an important part of policy before the agreement was signed.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) returned to his assertion that decisions are made in the Anglo-Irish Conference. I know the right hon. Gentleman well enough to find it difficult to believe that he believes that. He has been told repeatedly that it is not true. I do him the courtesy of believing that his understanding is greater than for him to accept that as a factual statement. If he does accept it, I must tell him again that it is not the case. His advocacy of a concealed form of joint authority is even less credible at the end of the past year, during which, as others have said, there have been differences of perception—and sometimes action—even within the framework of the agreement, between the two Governments.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not persist in making such assertions, because they do neither him nor the truth any credit. He also said—it is equally untrue—that I am bound by Dublin Ministers because an issue was raised at the Anglo-Irish Conference. That is not the case and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. He also knows, because it has been affirmed frequently enough, that Ministers make the decisions in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: When the Under-Secretary of State checks Hansard, he will find that I said that he is bound, through the Secretary of State, to make determined efforts to reach agreement on any proposals put forward at the Anglo-Irish Conference.

Dr. Mawhinney: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says. All that was reflected in the conference meeting was what had already been reflected to me by a representative group of the SDLP who came to see me about the education proposals. I am sorry, given what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) said, that he could not be part of that group, for reasons I quite understand.
The SDLP, the Catholic Church and others have a legitimate point of view to make about the consultative document, just as the education and library boards and Protestant Church leaders do. All are being invited to discuss the representations that they made. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has prejudged the draft legislation. I regret that—all the more so as we have hardly concluded the first part of what will be an extended consultation procedure on the education proposals. I regret it all the more because there was no response from the right hon. Gentleman's party to the consultation proposals. I find that sad. It is sad that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his colleagues on the same Bench, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), who was at one time a distinguished chairman of an education and library board, thought to respond to those proposals. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman attaches importance to these proposals and to the system out of which they flow. I hope that during the rest of the consultation process we can look forward to his contribution.

Mr. Molyneaux: I was at pains to make it clear that, although the Secretary of State and therefore the Minister were bound by the agreement—[Interruption.]—I am


sorry that I am interrupting something on the other side of the Chamber—to make determined efforts to reach agreement on any proposals put forward, I said that they were not bound to make determined efforts to reach agreement with us. Those right hon. and hon. Members are not even bound by the House of Commons to reach agreement with the House of Commons on any proposals whatsoever. That is the essential point. I was drawing attention to the futility of any of us putting forward ideas to the Secretary of State or the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Mawhinney: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, the essential point is that Ministers will ultimately make decisions which they will present to Parliament for Parliament's approval or otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman has a major opportunity to contribute to that process and I hope that he will do so, even if only on behalf of those whom he has been elected to represent in this House.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) for his comforting words about the attack on a bus yesterday, with which the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) wished to be associated. I understand my hon. Friend's point about no consultation being built into the agreement. He will know and remember that on many occasions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he would be happy to brief elected Members of the House on discussions arising out of the conference, were that to be their wish.
My hon. Friend also made a point, as did the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), about the Northern Ireland Committee. Since 1985 and the gas order debate. there has been no specific request for a debate of that Committee. If there were such a request, especially if it came from Northern Ireland Members, the Government would consider it sympathetically. Although that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to determine, I think that I accurately reflect the sympathetic view that he might take of such a request.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on that point because I am sure that he would not want the record to go uncorrected. In fact, both I and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) went to see the Leader of the House about that matter and to request a meeting of the Northern Ireland Committee.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I should make it clear that what I said, I said in good faith. I was not aware of that meeting.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: May I press my hon. Friend on that point? Is he giving an invitation this evening to the Northern Ireland political parties to make such representations to him because he would like a Northern Ireland Committee to be in existence?

Dr. Mawhinney: The Committee exists and can be activated. I have made it clear that if requests were to be made for it to be activated to look at particular draft legislation, I believe that the Government would react sympathetically.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made a speech which has already been much commented on, and I do not want to add much more, save to try to encourage him to understand that consent is an absolutely essential part of the democratic process. As the

intervention by his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made clear, consent is already enshrined in the legislation which is part of the legislation of this kingdom. The hon. Gentleman tried to make a point about the status of Northern Ireland. I gently point out to him that he was making that point in the sovereign Parliament of the United Kingdom. There can be no debate about his status. He has the right to make that speech in this Chamber; he does not have the right to make it in the Dail.

Rev. William McCrea: I can assure the Minister that I do not want to make that statement in the Dail. The Republic of Ireland claims jurisdiction over Northern Ireland and has said so in the past week. That is the honest position of the South. In entering into the Anglo-Irish Agreement it has done nothing which would take away from its jurisdiction claim over Northern Ireland.

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but that does not detract from my message which I should like him to take away with him tonight, that status is not in question, and the best evidence of that is that he made his speech in this Chamber.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) talked about the clash of relationships, and I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester, South that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made thoughtful speeches. We were reminded of the need for dialogue between Governments, and that is enshrined in the terms of the agreement. But there must be a similar need for dialogue in Northern Ireland. If we are to develop that dialogue, it must be with an understanding of the history of our Province and the acceptace of the integrity of those who think or act differently from us, within the terms of constitutional politics. We need to develop an appreciation that difference does not have to lead to division. It can be the strength rather than the weakness of a society. In a sense, the hon. Member for Belfast, East picked that up in his thoughtful analysis.
I welcome the recognition of the importance of consent. The hon. Member for Belfast, East encapsulated entirely the fact that in a democratic society government is by consent and that government in a devolved form must command widespread support of both communities or it cannot succeed. That is a self-evident truth, but one which too many people still cannot come to terms with. The hon. Gentleman was right to stress that we must take account of identity.
Most hon. Members would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman that no formal agreement between Governments can solve the problems within Northern Ireland by and of itself. There must be agreement to have internal discussions. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State confirmed that the Government are committed to the agreement.
The Secretary of State also made it clear that he wished to invite political parties to be involved in discussions without any preconditions, and that is important. The hon. Gentleman said, "If only the Government would say such and such, it would open the door to dialogue." In other words he was saying, "I should like to put a precondition on the discussions which the Secretary of State is inviting my party, other Unionist parties and the SDLP to have with him." The Secretary of State said that he wished to have those discussions without preconditions.
"Without preconditions" applies to everybody, so I cannot, on behalf of the Government, say what the hon. Gentleman wants me to say. That is not because I will not, but because the offer from the Secretary of State was for discussions without preconditions.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on both sides of the Chamber will talk to the Secretary of State not on the basis of preconditions, but with confidence in the strength of their arguments. That is the way in which progress can be made. I hope that they will feel that now is the time seriously to consider that proposal.
It has been claimed that the Unionist community was excluded from the development of the agreement. I hope that it will not now exclude itself from consultations with the Government that may be associated with a review of the working of the agreement.

Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend has stressed many times the important democratic principle of government by consent. Does he believe that it is possible to govern one part of this kingdom differently from the rest of the kingdom and differently from the way in which it has been governed previously, save with the consent of a majority of the people who are to be governed differently?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend will know that the sovereign Parliament has decided that an acceptable agreement was entered into by this Government with the Government of the Republic. That does not translate into the sort of fundamental difference that I know my hon. Friend honourably believes lies at the back of that agreement.
My right hon. Friend referred to sectarianism and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury supported him. We can make no progress ultimately in Northern Ireland unless the two communities learn to live together. Relations between them will be improved not just by the actions of politicians, but ultimately by the concerted actions of many individual members of the two communities. It is proper and correct that elected representatives should reflect the views of those who elect them. That is legitimate. However, it is not legitimate for that to spill over into a form of sectarianism or perceived sectarianism. I am encouraged by the increasing evidence in the community of Northern Ireland that there is a greater determination of people who wish to live together.
I must draw my remarks to a close—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Hear, hear.

Dr. Mawhinney: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement. He has not graced the debate with his presence for most of the time.
I wish to refer to an interview, on the "Today" programme this morning, with two of the girls who were on the bus yesterday. They were asked questions, and I wish to place before the House the answers of Madonna Murphy. She said:
I think people on both sides will be very angry, and hopefully their anger will bring them closer together to get rid of the sick people who do things like this.
Madonna Murphy also said that she thought that the people of Linaskea would

do as much as they can to create better relations. That's all they can hope to do, and hope that people realise that this is getting us nowhere.
I think that Madonna Murphy spoke for an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland when she said that the present arrangements were getting us nowhere.
I commend the order to the House, but I do so on an interim basis in the hope that we can build on the dialogue in the Chamber this evening. If we can talk here, the people of Northern Ireland will expect us to talk outside in the hope of doing better for the Madonna Murphys and all the other people in Northern Ireland.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 16.

Division No. 392]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hunter, Andrew


Alton, David
Irvine, Michael


Amess, David
Jack, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Jackson, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Janman, Tim


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Batiste, Spencer
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Knapman, Roger


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lang, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Boswell, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Boyes, Roland
Lilley, Peter


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McNamara, Kevin


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mans, Keith


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Buck, Sir Antony
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Burns, Simon
Maxton, John


Butler, Chris
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Butterfill, John
Miller, Sir Hal


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mills, Iain


Carrington, Matthew
Miscampbell, Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Cope, Rt Hon John
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Cran, James
Needham, Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Neubert, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Durant, Tony
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Fallon, Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Farr, Sir John
Paice, James


Favell, Tony
Porter, David (Waveney)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Portillo, Michael


Flannery, Martin
Quin, Ms Joyce


Forman, Nigel
Raffan, Keith


Foster, Derek
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Freeman, Roger
Redwood, John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Gow, Ian
Roe, Mrs Marion


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Rowe, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Ryder, Richard


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Ground, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hanley, Jeremy
Speller, Tony


Haynes, Frank
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Stern, Michael


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Sumberg, David


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)






Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thorne, Neil
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Worthington, Tony


Vaz, Keith
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, Rt Hon David



Wallace, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Peter Lloyd and Mr. David Lightbown.


Watts, John





NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Beggs, Roy
Paisley, Rev Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Patchett, Terry


Cousins, Jim
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Cryer, Bob
Skinner, Dennis


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Gordon, Mildred



Kilfedder, James
Tellers for the Noes:


Maginnis, Ken
Rev, William McCrea and


Meale, Alan
Mr. William Ross.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1988 which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Appropriation)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.
The order has been made under paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The draft order authorises the expenditure of £2,020 million. That amount, when added to the £1,598 million approved by the House on 1 March, gives a total voted cash provision for the Northern Ireland Departments of £3,618 million for the 1988–89 financial year. That forms the voted element for Northern Ireland Departments of the public expenditure planning total of £4,564 million, excluding law and order, shown in the public expenditure White Paper, Cm. 288. The House will know that this sum may be increased by supplementary estimates later in the year. The services on which the money will be spent are detailed in the Northern Ireland estimates for 1988–89.
Before turning to the detail of the estimates, I want to highlight certain key features of the Northern Ireland economy. Over the past year there has been a welcome fall in unemployment in the Province. In May, total seasonally adjusted unemployment was about 9,400 lower than a year earlier, although the overall unemployment rate of 17 per cent. is still twice that of the rest of the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, that is an unacceptable level.
The latest figures for those in employment, which show an increase of 5,000 in the 12 months ending in March 1988, are also encouraging and show growth across most sectors of the economy. The economic revival of Northern Ireland is perhaps most clearly reflected in the construction sector, in which output in 1987 was nearly 20 per cent. above its 1986 level.
As for the future, the United Kingdom economy is now in its eighth successive year of sustained growth and the Northern Ireland economy can be expected to benefit from further growth at national level in the months ahead. In the private sector, independent surveys—for example, by the CBI—show a favourable economic outlook for the Province, with investment intentions and business confidence remaining relatively buoyant. It is encouraging that in the past few months plans for substantial investment in the Province have been announced by Moy Park at Craigavon, Herdmans at Sion Mills near Strabane, Norbrook Laboratories at Newry, Glen Electric at Bangor and Newry, Neotech at Antrim and McDonnell Douglas at Glengormley.
As for the public sector, these estimates are based on forecast total public expenditure in Northern Ireland this year, including law and order, of £5,144 million. That is the highest ever amount in real terms—12 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. This provides the clearest possible evidence of the Government's recognition of the special expenditure needs of this part of the United Kingdom.
I now come to the details of the estimates, starting with agriculture. The net provision sought in the two votes covering agriculture, forestry and fisheries totals about £127 million. Vote I covers expenditure of about £40 million on national support measures which apply


throughout the United Kingdom. In the main this is made up of £27 million to assist structural improvements by way of various capital and other grants; £12 million is to support farming in the less-favoured areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote 2 seeks total provision of about £87 million for local agricultural expenditure programmes. This includes £16 million for industry support, and I would draw particular attention to the allocation of £6 million for the first year of the revised agricultural development programme which will commence very shortly. This programme will provide a range of assistance for farmers in the less-favoured areas, including renewal of existing drainage, grassland improvement, and silage effluent and animal waste storage facilities. These measures are extremely important to farmers in Northern Ireland's less-favoured areas, which cover almost 80 per cent. of the Province.
The reopening of the agricultural development programme will place farmers in a strong position to maintain levels of capital investment in farm structures. The aim is to increase efficiency by reducing costs and to avoid an increase in the production of commodities in surplus. This will help to offset to some degree the disadvantages suffered by agriculture because of Northern Ireland's geographical location. The other main elements of the vote are £38 million for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services to the industry, £20 million for drainage and forestry, and £12 million for central administrative services including accommodation.
I shall now turn to the Department of Economic Development. Vote 1 covers expenditure by the Industrial Development Board. In this vote the main provision sought, about £76 million, is for industrial support and regeneration including support for marketing and research and development. In addition, £13 million is required for the provision and maintenance of industrial land and buildings. Taken together, the IDB's various activities make a significant contribution to the strengthening of the Northern Ireland economy by stimulating investment and promoting job opportunities.
The Department of Economic Development vote 2 covers other economic support measures. About £60 million of the £110 million sought is to provide assistance to Harland and Wolff. This will be used largely to assist in refurbishing work within the yard, to provide grants for contract work, to fund redundancy payments and to meet current operating losses. This high level of support is required to enable the yard to meet the persisting difficulties of the world shipbuilding market.
The Local Enterprise Development Unit, the Northern Ireland small firms agency, has an allocation of £23 million. In the last financial year LEDU promoted 4,570 jobs, bringing to over 35,000 the number of jobs that it has promoted since the unit was first formed in 1971. The House will agree that this is a most creditable performance and illustrates the potential of the small firms sector in Northern Ireland.
In vote 3, a total of £116 million is sought for various training and employment measures such as the youth training programme, industrial training, the encouragement of enterprise and the provision of work experience for the long-term unemployed. The youth training

programme is an important element in the Government's strategy for fighting unemployment. It requires about £34 million this year. This level of funding enables a training place to be guaranteed this year for a minimum of two years to every unemployed 16-year-old and for one year for every 17-year-old. Nobody under 18 need now be on the unemployment register.
Also in vote 3, £37 million is sought for the action for community employment scheme. The ACE scheme is proving extremely successful and provides useful employment for those who have been out of work for at least 12 out of the previous 15 months. The scheme also gives participants improved prospects for obtaining employment in the open market. This provison will enable the number of ACE jobs available to increase this year from 6,200 to 8,000.
The balance of £45 million in vote 3 is made up of £29 million for industrial training, £12 million for other employment schemes such as Enterprise Ulster and £3.4 million on various labour market services such as the Fair Employment Agency. Finally within DED, vote 5 requires a total provision of £17 million; £15 million of this is to cover the orderly rundown of the gas industry. A further £1 million is earmarked to assist industry with the cost of implementing approved energy efficiency projects.
The Department of Environment vote 1 covers roads, transport and ports, and a total provision of £126 million is sought for these services. The major portion, some £102 million, is required for roads, of which some £42 million is for maintaining the existing road system. Vote 2 covers another very important matter—housing—for which £246 million is required to provide assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, to the voluntary housing movement including the co-ownership housing association and to the private housing sector, mainly comprising the cost of the rent assessment machinery. The Government's public expenditure allocation for housing of some £338 million in 1988–89, supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, will mean that gross expenditure on housing should be over £552 million this year.
Department of Environment vote 3 covers water and sewerage services. The total requirement is £84 million, of which over £26 million is earmarked for the capital works programme. Part of this is aimed at improving sewerage facilities in the Greater Belfast area. As a result, there will be an improvement in the quality of the River Lagan. Provision of £21 million is included in vote 4—environmental and other services—for urban regeneration measures. An important element is the encouragement of partnership between the Government and the private sector, as illustrated by the urban development grant scheme, in which every £1 of public money generates £3 of private finance.
The education estimates seek a total provision of £803 million for Department of Education and Science services. Total current expenditure on the schools sector in vote 1 accounts for over half the total provision in the education estimates. A major element of the expenditure is required for the salaries of almost 18,700 teachers. This number of teachers will maintain the pupil-teacher ratio at the improved 1987 level of 18·3. It includes an additional 50 specialist teachers for the continued development of the vocational education programme for secondary schools. Provision of over £6 million is included to increase the number of pupils following courses in science, economics, technology and information technology.
Expenditure in the schools sector also reflects the expansion of the 11-to-16 programme into a further 50 secondary schools. The main aim of the programme, which commenced in 1984–85, is to improve the quality and relevance of education for all pupils in the age range 11 to 16 but especially for those young people who do not react positively to secondary education.
The current expenditure provision of £250 million to area education and library boards to cover the running costs of controlled and maintained schools represents an increase of 5 per cent. above last year's spending. In the further education sector, provision has been made for an additional 30 lecturers in the priority disciplines of engineering, business studies and microelectronics. The estimates provide for total capital expenditure on education of some £51 million. This will enable a substantial programme of new building work to start, including 21 school building projects worth £30 million. The major projects are listed on pages 104 and 105 of the estimates volume. The capital provision includes almost £2 million for work on the replacement and upgrading of schools for the mentally handicapped, including a start on a major new special school in Belfast.
In the Department of Education's vote 2, provision of £127 million is sought. The bulk of this, some £100 million, covers expenditure on the two universities in the Province, and expenditure on the Open university and on teacher training in Northern Ireland. Grants to the universities are based on the principle of maintaining parity of provision with comparable institutions in Great Britain. The remaining £27 million is for expenditure on arts and museums, youth, sport and community services and the administrative costs of the Department of Education. Provision is also made in this vote for the community relations initiative to promote cross-community contact among young people in Northern Ireland, which was launched by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 14 September last year, and which I am sure commands the warm support of both sides of the House.
For the Department of Health and Social Services, a total of £762 million is sought in vote 1 to maintain and further improve Northern Ireland's health and personal social services. The largest single element within this total is the health and social services boards' expenditure of £625 million. A further £25 million has been earmarked for capital expenditure. This will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of major and minor works, including the first stages of the new area hospital at Antrim, the new block at the Mater hospital, Belfast and geriatric units and day hospitals at Enniskillen and Armagh.
Vote 3 provides £71 million for the Department of Health and Social Services administration and miscellaneous services. Vote 4 provides £825 million for social security. This includes £32 million for support to the national insurance fund. Some £18 million is for payments into the social fund. The balance—£775 million—is for family and non-contributory benefits, as well as means-tested benefits.
I hope that this summary of the main items of expenditure has been helpful and I commend the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order to the House for its consideration and approval.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I thank the Minister for taking us so carefully through the details of the order. That helps every hon. Member to understand what the order, which is of paramount importance to all the people of Northern Ireland, contains. Important as these measures are, their substance should be discussed by local politicians in Northern Ireland. I regret the absence from this debate of some of the main protaganists from our previous debate, as the order is essential for the well-being of all people in the North of Ireland.
There is much to be welcomed in the order and the Minister's speech. It is good to see the Government's continued adherence—in the North of Ireland, if not in the rest of the United Kingdom—to the importance of economic intervention and public spending. As I conceded to the Secretary of State in the previous debate, there are some optimistic economic indicators in Northern Ireland. The Minister cites the continuing fall in unemployment. among other improvements, and the recently announced expansion of the textile industry.
However, the improvement is relative when compared to the economy of 15 or 18 years ago. I am sure that the Minister will accept that there has been a massive decline in employment in manufacturing industry since the 1970s. Industrial output is still below the level of 1973, and unemployment, even though it is on the decline, still hovers at around twice the national average. I am sure that he will further concede that living standards are among the lowest in the United Kingdom, which is a reflection of both the low wage economy and the high levels of unemployment.
There are one or two worrying signals about the future economic prospects of the North of Ireland. As the Minister did not say much about them, perhaps the Under-Secretary will do so later. The Government will know that a recent report issued by the Northern Ireland Economic Council highlights the fact that the underlying economic position is not based on a fundamental improvement in the economy. Additionally, there has been a worrying excessive growth of credit in the local economy. A recent observation shows that personal credit at the end of 1987 stood between £700 million and £750 million. With the fragile economy that pertains in the North of Ireland. the families that are in debt are in a position that is fraught with disaster.
I do not intend to highlight every detail of the order. I shall refer to one or two examples and my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) will take up some others when she winds up for the Opposition.
First, the Minister will know that Northern Ireland egg producers have become accustomed to extremely low, economic returns. Those returns have often been negative for short periods. In the recent past, the position has worsened dramatically. There are no EC arrangements for effective price support for the industry. Is it possible for the Government to take unilateral action to finance a scheme to enable egg producers to be given financial incentives to abandon their enterprises?
The Government are rightly proud of the recent growth in the linen industry in the North of Ireland. I am sure that they will be aware that the basic raw material, flax, used to be an abundant crop in the North of Ireland. I understand that the recent expansion in the industry has been based on


imported flax. Some time ago the Government commissioned a report which showed that there could be a revival in the flax-growing industry in the North of Ireland if up-to-date techniques were used. Have the Government any intention of introducing any incentives, or any new new policies, to encourage the production of flax within the North of Ireland?
I acknowledge and welcome, as I have done on previous occasions, the extent of financial support for industrial regeneration. However, if the Government are so committed to industrial development, why are 100 jobs, including 35 Government training inspectors within the Department of Economic Development, under threat?
The Minister of State referred to Harland and Wolff and the measure of public support that it enjoys. I welcome the Government's decision to maintain and increase that support. I am sure that the Minister will agree that Harland and Wolff is of great economic benefit to Belfast and to the Province as a whole. No matter what its future ownership may be—we would differ on that issue—there is an urgent need for Harland and Wolff to continue to exist. The Ultimate Dream project is of some importance in that context. I ask the Minister to be more specific. Can he tell us when the Government are likely to be in full knowledge of the facts of the Ultimate Dream project and when they will be able to announce their response to Harland and Wolff's request for financial assistance?
Within the responsibilities of the Department of the Environment, I wish to raise one point about housing and another about roads. All parties would concede that successive Governments have been generous in making provision to fund Northern Ireland housing. We all accept the need for that, in view of the chronic condition of the housing stock there, which necessitated drastic action.
That finance has been forthcoming. Consequently, housing has greatly improved, but it still falls below the standard in the rest of the United Kingdom. This is not the time to slacken the pace of house building and improvement in Northern Ireland, but unfortunately that is beginning to happen, New house building by the Housing Executive is being reduced, waiting lists are increasing, and there is a growing backlog of improvements and repairs. That situation must be reversed. Northern Ireland is not yet in the fortunate situation where the drive to improve the housing stock can be slackened.
In general, we all accept also that Northern Ireland's road system is good, with most major towns being bypassed and Warrenpoint and Belfast ports being served by excellent dual carriageway and motor road access. However, having recently visited Larne, I wish to make a special plea on behalf of Lame in respect of the A8 between Larne and Belfast. The Minister is aware of the issue and has recently replied to the boss of the port authority, rejecting the plea that I shall now repeat. I hope that in response to my personal submission he will give a less unequivocal no than the one that he gave previously.
Larne is the largest roll-on, roll-off port in Northern Ireland, but its growth may be impeded by the road system linking it with Belfast. Increasingly, the 11-mile stretch of single carriageway between Lame and Belfast is becoming a bottleneck. It also represents a considerable accident risk, as long queues of traffic frequently develop behind

relatively slow-moving heavy goods vehicles and caravans. As the Minister knows, there are few safe passing places on that stretch of road.
I hope that the Government will show their good intentions towards Lame port and its economic well-being, as well at the high priority they accord to road safety, by announcing that they accept the need for a dual carriageway system to extend along the whole length of the A8 between Lame and Belfast.
On Department of Health and Social Security matters, I shall let pass the opportunity to condemn the Government's complacency and get down to more particular points. Why are the Government refusing to hold a public inquiry into cuts and hospital closures in the Northern health board area? What is the Government's policy on peripheral hospitals such as Down general? In particular, what is the Government's response to the plan submitted by the local medical and other staff to concentrate all the facilities of Down general on the site of the new maternity hospital?
I also wish to ask about the royal group of hospitals, and particularly the Royal Victoria. I do so for a number of reasons. First, in last year's debate, a number of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies expressed doubts about the long-term desirability of keeping the Royal Victoria. Unfortunately those comments, together with financial cuts, have fuelled the suspicion that a political decision has been made to run down and eventually close the hospital. I sincerely hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to scotch such rumours once and for all by expressing his confidence in all the staff of the Royal Victoria, and in the long-term future of the hospital.
The Minister will no doubt accept that the Royal Victoria is a centre of excellence with a worldwide reputation in many specialties, and is second to none as a major source of medical research. Its medical reputation is one of which all of us, whichever part of the United Kingdom we come from, can be justly proud. Moreover, members of both communities work side by side in the hospital, and it is a major employer of both communities in that part of west Belfast.
The closure of the hospital would be not only a medical disaster but a social and economic tragedy to many thousands of employees and their families. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to my plea on their behalf.
I can only repeat what I said in an earlier debate on appropriations. While we all recognise the imperative of security, it must not be achieved at the expense of other services. Unfortunately, the suspicion lingers in my mind that that may be the case in some key areas of expenditure in the North of Ireland. The Government must also continue to take a lead in encouraging economic activity and co-operation between the North and the South. I am sure that the Minister agrees that inward investment is of paramount importance, and the debate that we are to have on Friday, and the subsequent legislation, will play a large part in determining the level of American investment.
In conclusion, I can give the Government a light pat on the back. But they could do better: they could provide more financial resources. In view of the pleas that we have made and will continue to make, I hope that those increased resources will be forthcoming.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The order, entailing the expenditure of some £2,000 million, is all-important to the Ulster people. Yet under the present colonial-type rule, only one and a half hours have been provided for our debate. How can I tell my constituents—and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland—that the Government place Northern Ireland high on their list of priorities, when the debate is taking place at midnight after a long and busy day? This is a sad comment on the present state of affairs. Not so long ago, matters covered by this all-important appropriation order were considered carefully and in great detail by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I see here colleagues who served in that Assembly: my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea).

Rev. William McCrea: When dealing with the budget and the vote for the Education Department, will my hon. Friend reflect on something that may have been raised with him when he was Speaker of the Assembly? The case, which has been going on for some time, is that of a Mr. Crozier from Cookstown, a former teacher.
In a previous debate I stated that Mr. Crozier wanted only to be told why he is being pensioned off on health grounds and then he would take the pension.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will agree that in the desire for accuracy it would be correct for me to state that Mr. Crozier would agree to a pension only if his excellent service for 10 years could be proved false and if Dr. Flanagan's report of normal good health could be proved wrong. It is right that that should be stated correctly in Hansard and I ask my hon. Friend to encourage the Minister to be sympathetic to my constituent.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am sure that the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend has said about the matter which he mentioned during the lifetime of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It is right that he should put the record straight.
It is sad that the Northern Ireland Assembly no longer exists, because all these matters, which may seem of little consequence to hon. Members from Great Britain, are vital to people in Northern Ireland. Therefore I hope that the day is not long off when the Northern Ireland Assembly can be brought back into being and when constitutional politicians can once again meet at Stormont and work together in a positive mood to improve the conditions of the people of Northern Ireland.
Anyone who visits Northern Ireland will know that, despite the image projected by television, Ulster people are kindly, humourous, good-natured and big-hearted and that it is not their fault that the evil of terrorism haunts them every day and every night of their lives. I hope that we can return to peace in Northern Ireland and that we can work together for the goal of creating a better Ulster for the people who will come after us.
I wish to make use of this opportunity to protest about the effects of the substitute teacher regulation in primary schools. The regulation, which was implemented in September 1987, bars a principal from obtaining a substitute teacher until the third day of absence of one of his teaching staff. The regulation was introduced by the Department of Education in Northern Ireland as part of a

policy of Government expenditure cuts. Will the Minister say—if not tonight, perhaps later—what was the cost of such teacher cover in primary schools in Northern Ireland in the last school year before the regulation was introduced and what has been the cost for this year to date, which amounts almost to an entire school year?
The Government are concerned only about money. I am convinced that the regulation should be abolished. I am concerned about the primary schools and the boys and girls who are entrusted to those schools by their parents.
When a teacher is absent, the principal of a primary school has to make the unenviable choice between putting that teacher's class in with another class or dividing the class among a number of other classes in the school. We have to remember that classes in schools in many parts of Northern Ireland are already full, and chairs and desks may have to be moved whenever rearrangements are made. As a result of the rearrangements the pupils suffer the loss of proper tuition while the temporary arrangements last. Not only the pupils who are missing the teacher are affected; all the boys and girls in the rearranged classes lose out, because no matter how good a teacher may be, the changes and the crowded classroom will disturb the normal routine and unsettle the children. Therefore they will suffer educationally.
Of course, there is an additional worry for the school because the possibility of an accident is increased and it is more difficult to clear a classroom in case of fire. Therefore, I urge the Minister to abandon the regulation, in the interests of the schools, the parents, and above all, the boys and girls in the primary schools.
I have been informed that the Northern Ireland Schools Examination Council has introduced a new syllabus. Under the old one, Northern Ireland was studied with the United Kingdom, but now, for the first time, it has been taken out of that context and it must be studied as part of a course on Ireland, North and South. I would like the Minister's comments on that. Perhaps he will ensure that the previous arrangement is brought back.
Parents in my constituency and others covered by the South-Eastern education board have a real grievance about the lack of grammar school places for boys and girls who would benefit from such education but do not pass the 11-plus transfer test. The new policy being pursued by the South-Eastern education board means that, even with a controlled school such as Glenlola in Bangor, which has the physical capacity and the necessary teachers to take another 20 to 30 pupils in September this year, no more fee-paying pupils are permitted. That is unacceptable. I have argued with the board and made representations to the Department of Education on behalf of six girls whose parents want to send them to the school. It amounts to discrimination against the girls. If they had been boys of similar education attainment, they would have been given a place in a voluntary grammar school. I do not think that the education board should be a party to discrimination.
We need a reversal of Government policy, which was meekly accepted by the Eastern health board until last year, when even it protested about cuts in hospital services in its area. The board's area includes the city of Belfast, which has teaching hospitals, including the Royal Victoria hospital and the new tower block at the City hospital. They attract vast sums of money, which is drained away from North Down, which I have the good fortune to represent, to the detriment of Bangor hospital, the Ulster hospital at Dundonnell and the Ards hospital.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) will mention hospitals in his constituency, as he has before. We lodge formally a protest with the Minister about the unacceptable situation. Hospitals are being denied the money which would enable them to provide a proper and full service to people in their areas. Vast sums are, however, going to hospitals in Belfast, which has a decreasing population.
North Down borough council has attempted to have a new byelaw accepted by the Department of Environment. The council has endeavoured to control the problem of alcohol and solvent abuse in council parks, piers, promenades and open spaces. Sadly, Bangor is no different from other towns in Northern Ireland, which have suffered from drunks, smashed bottles, shouted obscenities, fights and general bad behaviour. The council submitted a draft byelaw to the Department of Environment for approval, but the Department has so far refused to confirm it
as it would criminalise an activity not presently illegal and that it considers that the Police already had sufficient powers to deal with the matter.
The truth is that there are not enough police in Bangor, and more police are needed.
I am still awaiting a response to the appeal and complaint that I made to the Northern Ireland Office at the beginning of the year. It replied, acknowledging my letter. It sent another acknowledgement and then another. It then said that it had passed the matter on to the Police Authority. The Police Authority then sent me an acknowledgement. Months later, I have still not got an answer to my demand for more police for the Bangor area.
As a result of the behaviour of drunks in Bangor and those who engage in aggressive conduct, many people in the area, visitors and residents alike, are offended. Something must be done to protect law-abiding people, not only in Bangor but in other places, who are subjected to hooliganism. I urge the Government to recognise the problem that is faced by Bangor and other towns in Northern Ireland.
Millions of pounds have been spent on a new marina and other developments in Bangor, which will transform that seaside resort over the next few years. I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will take the opportunity of coming to my constituency to see the delightful resort of Bangor——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): indicated assent.

Mr. Kilfedder: I am glad that you are nodding your head in agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We—I am including the Bangor borough council—will put out the red carpet for you. I am not too sure about the Northern Ireland Office. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—I think that he is pointing at his chest; I do not know whether he has something wrong with his chest. He is now pointing at his brain, or rather at where his brain should be——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I thought that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was adding to the hon. Gentleman's encouragement to me to visit Bangor.

Mr. Kilfedder: The trouble with some people is that they extend invitations to areas for which they do not have

responsibility. I, as the Member of Parliament for that area, and speaking on behalf of the Bangor borough council—a most distinguished body of people—am extending that invitation to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister was invited to Bangor and has seen the progress that has been made in the marina. He knows about the problems which people will face if they use the marina where young people urinate into the yachts that are already there and smash bottles. That is not the sort of welcome which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would expect. Therefore, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to make sure that approval is given to that draft byelaw.
I turn now to housing. A substantial cut of £5 million in the Housing Executive budget for 1988–89 was made by the Government in March without any notice to the Housing Executive and after the amount for 1988–89 had already been announced by the Government. For the year 1988–89 the Housing Executive had sought a funding allocation of £345 million, but the Government reduced that to £309 million. Therefore, the Housing Executive budget for this year has been severely cut.
According to the Housing Executive, the cuts will have a detrimental effect on the number of new houses to be built in Northern Ireland and on the amount of renovation work that is undertaken. Improvement work will now have to be placed on such an extended time scale that disrepair and need will rise at a far faster rate than the rate at which the Housing Executive can carry out remedial work.
The housing unfitness rate in Northern Ireland is already worse than the average for the rest of the United Kingdom. I pay tribute to Mr. Victor Blease, the Housing Executive's chief executive, who is a totally dedicated man, leading an enormous organisation, and dealing with a gigantic task in Northern Ireland. But perhaps the size of the Housing Executive is its weakness. The repairs carried out on individual homes are not always of a high standard. I have seen many botched jobs in my constituency and my complaint applies to other constituencies in Northern Ireland. Some council repairs are not properly checked by officials, yet the contractor is paid. The executive may then bring in another contractor to make good the botched job, but more often than not, it will not do so, and the unfortunate tenant suffers.
Major renovation work is taking place in various parts of my constituency. At the block of flats in Drumadoon drive, Ballybeen, Dundonald, the contractor has still not completed the work which he started last year. Each block was to have been completed within a relatively short space of time and the tenants were assured that the work would be completed within a few months. Instead of finishing each small block in turn, as promised, the contractor has work going on in all the blocks. That is unfair. He should have finished one block and then moved to the next.
All the tenants are suffering with holes in walls and unfinished work, and even where the contractor has finished, he must come back to make good what was not done properly initially. I demand an investigation into that renovation contract and into other sites where work is prolonged and the lives of tenants are made a misery by delays and the standard of workmanship.
In addition to the undue and punishing delay in completing the work, defects have become manifest, and workmen must correct mistakes. For example, windows can be opened only with the greatest difficulty. It is extraordinary that a contractor can leave a job in that state. There is a further punishment for tenants. They find


that in their absence workmen have used their kitchens, cookers and cooking utensils, and left cigarette stubs in saucepans. If that is not enough, the contractor makes use of their electricity for power machines. One tenant's electricity bill has more than doubled since the contractor has been there.
That is not how tenants in that sector should be treated. It is not as though rents are cheap; they are not. They have been increased to a level which makes life difficult for those who do not qualify for housing benefit. The recent housing benefit changes have made a cruel difference to many of our senior citizens. Perhaps the Government do not recognise that many people take pride in watching their pennies. The expression used for people who are careful with money is that they "look after" their pennies. These senior citizens of mine who have worked hard all their lives and now deserve some dignity in old age, have to consider how to spend their pennies. It is not a question of being able to discount the pennies and throw the pounds around; they have to watch how every penny is spent.
No wonder I am incensed when I hear of people spending vast sums in the City of London while pensioners are denied what would give them some comfort in their old age. That is why the Government need to show compassion.
There is a need to freeze rents at their present level. In many cases they are already too high in the Housing Executive sector. The Government should seek to help the elderly, the sick, the disabled and, especially, parents with a mentally handicapped son or daughter. I know that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) wishes to speak, so I do not have time to enlarge on those matters. I give notice that I will return to them at a later stage.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: We have spent five hours discussing the political environment in which the people of Northern Ireland live. It is a great pity that we do not have the same time to debate the bread-and-butter issues that relate to that environment on a day-to-day basis. In the short time available, it would be impossible for anyone to deal in detail with the points raised by the Minister, so I shall make a few general comments.
The principle of the budgetary process in Northern Ireland is based on parity, but it seems to be applied in different ways to different announcements. For example, when parity demands a cut, there is a minus sign; when the plus sign is used, parity means an increase in rents and electricity. The most adverse parity is when it relates to benefits, which are the same as those in the remainder of the United Kingdom, despite the fact that food, transport and energy are much dearer in Northern Ireland. Therefore, the benefits are not of equivalent value.
Agriculture is a base industry in Northern Ireland and it is suffering a grave disadvantage in almost all sectors, be it milk, pig or poultry. The Minister has referred to one or two areas where the producer suffers adversely compared with his counterpart in the remainder of the United Kingdom. The higher cost of transport, both inwards and outwards and the higher feeding and energy costs result in a very meagre profit margin, while the pig industry actually suffers a substantial loss.
Much has been correctly made of job creation, but it must be understood that as well as creating jobs, there must be an appropriate and equal distribution of them,

because of the peculiar circumstances of the two communities, job distribution will be essential for equal opportunities in job attainment and requirement.
I was glad that the Minister announced the advent of the agricultural development programme and the £6 million that will be provided. I urge him to hasten that programme because the larger part of Northern Ireland is a less-favoured area. I shall be parochial and say that my constituency of South Down is one of those less-favoured areas. It made an application to the EEC in January 1986, through the Department of Agriculture, but there has been no word on it since. I ask the Minister to give an assurance that a more dynamic approach will be made to whoever has the power to make a decision—be he in Brussels or in London—to ensure that those less-favoured areas are declared.
Another area in which the Minister could take immediate and beneficial action for the whole of Northern Ireland—again, it has a particular relevance to South Down—is that of sheep farmers. The hill subsidy is paid in two instalments to both the highland and the lowland farmer. The annual premium for ewes has been paid only in part to the highland areas—that was last November—and there has been no payment at all to the lowland areas. Relief could be given if the will were there to do so.
The very small farmer is making a contribution to the maintenance of his livelihood and that of his family, and I ask the Minister to extend to him basic grants such as those for reseeding, drainage and fencing. That would alleviate some of the hardship.
The Minister may have noticed that I tabled a question to the Prime Minister about assistance for fishermen who had lost their gear, their tackle and their catch through becoming entangled with those mysterious, unnatural objects that move backwards in the Irish sea. I ask him to be more sympathetic in endeavouring to solve those problems.
I have already made general comments about economic development and job promotion. The Government could take a number of steps to help job creation. In March, unemployment stood at 17·3 per cent.—double the United Kingdom average. The Industrial Development Board should make a more vigorous approach to the north American continent. There should be a better presentation of the benefits of establishing inward investment in Northern Ireland. The board's current approach is too sympathetic and sentimental; it is based on heritage, and how many Presidents we gave to America. The hard-nosed business man is not interested in all that. He wants to know about training, grants, education, skills and so on. A hard-nosed sales technique would be much more beneficial.
The Minister said that the CBI was showing confidence because of full order books. Perhaps he is not aware that the CBI is concerned that, despite full order books, there is no real intent to make substantial additional investment, either internally or from abroad. Yet that is really the only way in which jobs will be created. The recent 10 per cent. increase in electricity costs will not help to create viable industries in Northern Ireland. It is a tragedy that the year that young people spend in skilled training under the youth training programme is not recognised as apprenticeship by the respective industries. It would help those young people to obtain jobs if it was judged to be a recognised year of training.
Another aspect of job promotion is tourism. I pay tribute to Sir Jack Swinson, who retires tomorrow after 14 years' service. He has done a magnificent job and brought a tradesman's dimension to tourist promotion. However, it has been concentrated on particular areas, and now needs a new image.
There are enormous opportunities for expansion to other areas. I especially have in mind Down, which has scenic beauty, outdoor activities, parks, golf courses and all that anyone needs, including the passive holiday enterprise of St. Patrick's country, St. Patrick's heritage and St. Patrick's grave. That has not yet been packaged, but it could be a big sell to the Irish-American community in north America.
Job creation and tourist promotion lead me almost automatically on to roads. In the halcyon days of big money, money was spent on certain areas of Northern Ireland, not on areas such as South Down and South Armagh and other areas outside what I call the new pale. Those roads should be improved and properly maintained.
I am not satisfied with the yo-yo approach to housing finance in Northern Ireland. We still have 131,000 houses in serious disrepair, which is 25·7 per cent. of the total stock, 51,000 are unfit and 49,000 lack at least one amenity. That means that 10·4 per cent. of total housing is in an adverse condition. In addition, 11,000 households are in urgent need. I hope that the Minister will do his best to increase that budget, particularly since he is introducing legislation for the homeless for which there seems to be no budget.
I echo what the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) said on health and I put in a plug once again for the Down hospital. However, one particular matter is causing me great concern. I have received a letter from a consultant radiologist who is greatly concerned that, because of obsolete diagnostic X-ray equipment, people in Northern Ireland are receiving two and a half times the necessary radiation dose in the normal application of X-rays. A new nuclear magnetic resonance scanner is required, against which I understand that the Department of Health and Social Security has set its face. That does not involve ionising radiation and is considered to be safe. That is the case despite EC regulations and the strictures of the National Radiological Protection Board and the Health and Safety Executive. Will the Department please look for a few thousand pounds or whatever is required to give that added safety factor to the medical service in Northern Ireland?
Finally, I want to refer to my abhorrence for the consequences of the social security regulations as applied to Northern Ireland. According to a brief survey in my constituency, applications for benefit have dropped by 76 per cent. People who have come to my surgeries have been denied benefit for rates and rents. To say that there is not major deprivation as a result of the social security changes is to fly in the face of the facts that I meet every day in my constituency.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I am aware that tonight is the debut, or honeymoon, of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam), so I shall be brief and confine myself to one issue.
I shall not mention South Armagh, nor shall I mention the imbalance that remains after three years in the number of managers in Government training centres. I do not expect the Minister to give me a satisfactory reply, but I still hope for one.
The urban development grant was provided for Northern Ireland, especially for those areas that have suffered greatly during the past 20 years from the bombings, troubles and all kinds of environmental deprivation. I live in one of those areas, known as Armagh. It has been bombed about 18 times. It has been almost razed to the ground. Surprise, surprise, the Department of the Environment, acting as agent for the international fund, was able to process only one application for the sum of £9,000. One wonders what is wrong. The list shows that Coleraine, another world from Armagh, had six such applications processed, to the tune of £264,700.
That drives me to one of two conclusions; either the DOE is grossly inefficient in the areas in which I live and work—I know that it is anything but inefficient; it is most efficient—or there are differing approaches to the administration of this urban development grant. I would need some convincing by the Minister that there is not an imbalance in the application, administration and payment of the grant.
I hope the Minister will explain this, if not tonight, then on another occasion. I note that Ballycastle received one award of £84,000. Let us remember that the grant exists so that dilapidated buildings can be brought up to standard. And one dwelling was awarded £84,000. In Armagh, one dwelling was awarded £9,000. Downpatrick got £1,500 for one dwelling. Bangor has no problem; it had three grants at £46,100. The hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) will know of the ravages that the IRA has wrought in Bangor.
I want clarification of where the £84,000 in Ballycastle went. I was told by a Government Department that it was for retail outlets. In my younger days, they used to be known as shops. One should not justify the unjustifiable by clothing it in different verbiage.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: I start by echoing the words of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) who said that these are bread and butter issues, which it is important to discuss. It is sad that we have little time left in which to do that, and I shall be brief so as to allow the Minister to answer the many questions he has been asked. I should hate to deprive him of the chance to do that by talking too long.
The Minister mentioned indicators that we should examine to determine whether the position in Northern Ireland is getting better. He listed some that tended to portray the silver lining to some of the grey clouds that can be seen over Northern Ireland. But there are other signs which could have been used and which might have given a more complete picture.
The Minister readily acknowledged the 17 per cent. unemployment—the highest in the United Kingdom. He cited the construction sector, but if he had mentioned the manufacturing sector we should have seen a 30 per cent. contraction since 1979.
Two other statistics will begin to give a true flavour of the degree of social and economic deprivation in the Province. One quarter of the population are on


means-tested benefits, which gives some idea of the extent of the benefits problem. The second statistic records the number of youngsters who leave school at 16 with no qualifications. We are talking about a quarter of 16-year-old youngsters leaving school in Northern Ireland with no qualifications compared with one tenth in England and Wales. That is a worrying statistic because it creates a climate of deprivation, poverty and unemployment which is a breeding ground for alienation, frustration and paramilitary recruitment. That must be borne in mind.

Mr. David Lightbown (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Rubbish.

Ms. Mowlam: The Government Whip might consider it rubbish but if he had listened to a little more of the debate he might be able to comment more constructively instead of making negative comments.
When we look at the picture more broadly, we see that we have to take into account the economic and social situation and the political side and make sure that they work hand in hand.
I should like the Minister to address an aspect of the order that has not been covered—value for money. We have had some suggestions about how the money could be allocated differently, but I should like to be sure that it will be allocated in an efficient, value-for-money way.
I shall give an example of what I mean. In his opening statement the Minister said that 21 new schools are being built. Is one of the schools that he listed the Catholic school being built 100 yd down the road from Skegoneill primary school in north Belfast which is closing this month? If it is, that means that within 100 yd one school is closing and another one is opening. As I am sure the Under-Secretary of State is aware, 21 per cent. of the students of the school that is closing are Catholics. In September, the intake would be 50 per cent. In the Minister's view, that school is ripe for grant-maintained integrated status in line with the Government's policy of supporting integrated education. It is ideal for funding under what are known as the Mawhinney proposals.
It appears to be a scandalous waste of Government resources to close one school and open another, because there is no clear indication that that is not a waste of taxpayers' money due to inefficient management of the Department of Education budget. Similarly, we could look at the allocation of money to nursery education. I am sure that the Minister knows that 84 per cent. of three-year-olds and 25 per cent. of four-year-olds receive no nursery education.
The recent European Commission report shows that Britain is the meanest EC country in relation to nursery education and that Northern Ireland has the lowest number of available places. Has there been any attempt in the order to respond to that problem and to the Commission's report?
When answering that question, perhaps the Minister would also respond to the 1987 policy document "Day care in education for under-fives in Northern Ireland". It proposed the establishment of a central advisory committee to discuss the whole question of the under-fives. I have found no evidence to show that that advisory committee has been set up. People are unable to go to work or have to give up work because of a lack of nursery

provision or local authority provision in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister say whether that committee has been set up to address that important problem?
When the Minister is replying to the question asked by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), perhaps he could tell the House about the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman mentioned of discrimination against girls in the 11-plus transferability test. Perhaps he could tell us whether the setting of a quota of 27 per cent. for boys and girls when all the statistics show that more girls pass at that age is clearly a case of sex discrimination. Will he support the Equal Opportunities Commission, which wants that regulation changed? Clearly it discriminates against girls who at that age are more capable than boys of passing that examination.
We have heard a great deal about integrated education and there has been much support, supposedly from the Government, for that. Will the Minister address the matter of capital funding for Hazlewood and Lagan integrated schools? We know that Hazlewood has been given funding a month ahead of time, but what about capital funding for other schools that are going for integrated status rather than changing? He knows that without that capital funding new integrated schools are unable to survive. I am sure that Minister will not prejudge the matter but will pay careful attention to all the submissions that have been made about this topic. I should like him to tell the House whether the question of integrated education will be considered.
I shall make a couple more points, and then I will stop to give the Minister a chance to respond.
A number of hon. Members asked about agriculture. I should like to add to their questions by referring to the problems facing seed potato farmers. As I am sure the Minister will know, because of export problems last year crop commitments have been made without adequate financial resources to back them. Until now the Government have refused to help the industry. It is no exaggeration to say that the seed potato sector is on the verge of collapse. About £700,000 investment is needed and 750 jobs are threatened. The Government should have addressed that problem in the order.
As I understand the DED estimates, they include a reduction in the electricity tariff subsidy from £4·5 million to £1 million. Will not that lead to even higher electricity prices—a problem which the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) raised in relation to industrial development? The Minister has acknowledged the problems that pensioners face in this regard.
Will the Minister assure us that in the figures for social security—especially the appropriations in aid—there is not a saving in terms of cuts in social security benefits? We know that the social fund loan will be less than what was paid out in single payments. We know that the transfer from supplementary benefit to income support involves a decrease. We seek an assurance that the appropriation in aid will not in fact represent a cut. The Minister has said about social security that overall it is pensioners who are the main losers in the changes. Can he assure us that there will not be an additional cut in pensioners' income as a result of both electricity price increases and potential benefit cuts?
Can the Minister assure us that the appropriations for the Northern Ireland Audit Office—appropriations in aid of £235,000—represent value for money? I understand that the money is related to contracts that are being


worked outside the main Government Departments. However, we need to be sure that the Audit Office is doing its job properly and has adequate funding to ensure that Government Departments are acting efficiently in terms of value for money.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): It would require 90 minutes rather than nine to answer the torrent of questions that the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) asked with her customary vigour. If I do not get round to answering all of them, I shall of course write to her with full details, and if she wishes to have a further meeting, I shall, as always, be only too delighted to see her.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) pointed out that not many members of the Official Unionist party were present. I do not understand how hon. Members in the Official Unionist party think that they can do anything to lessen the alienation of which they complain so bitterly by boycotting debates as important as this. Last year, I seem to remember, they were here; the year before, they were not. Their behaviour is increasingly reminiscent of the words of the old song:
First she said yes,
then she said no.
First she said come,
then she said go.
You probably remember them yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Unionist people of Northern Ireland showed clearly at the last election what they felt about hon. Members who abstained in parliamentary proceedings: they kicked two of them out. But it seems that Unionist Members have once again retired to their tents to complain through the columns of the newspapers that no one is listening to them. It is hard to listen to people who will not talk. We all remember one Northern Ireland Member who came to a debate to abstain in person. Now Northern Ireland Members come to boycott debates in person.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South gratifyingly pointed out that an economic revival is taking place in Northern Ireland, but relative to what happened 15 years ago, it is still fairly shallow. There have been great problems in replacing the old industries, which have been running down in the Province over the past five or six years. The major problem, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is that it is extremely difficult, in the present political and terrorist climate in Northern Ireland, to tempt people back. The best hope for reducing the number of unemployed and getting industry back is to replace war-war with jaw-jaw, and in the earlier debate, we had some signs that we may be making some progress in that process.
The problems of egg producers are felt throughout the country and the Community. I realise the difficulties facing them, but I do not have much more than sympathy to offer.
The hon. Gentleman will remember from his visits to Northern Ireland that the growing of flax, which he mentioned, is a two-edged sword, to mix my metaphors. The retting of flax can create problems of pollution and although, as he rightly pointed out, the climate in

Northern Ireland is conducive to the growing of flax, it is not as ideal as the climate in other flax-producing areas. However, he is right to say that the linen industry is doing much better, and I hope that that will continue.
There is a question about Harland and Wolff on tomorrow's Order Paper and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we hope to be able to make a statement on the future of the yard soon. We are ready to consider any privatisation proposals, but I have nothing of further use to add tonight.
I appreciate that the housing budget for this year is not as much as the Housing Executive asked for. I have to point out to the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) that if one asks for £500 million and gets only £300 million, one can say that one has had a budget cut of £200 million. However, it would never have been possible for us to fund everything that the Housing Executive wanted.
I probably will not be able to cover all the points made by the hon. Gentleman, but I can say that the outturn for 1987–88 was £500 million, and the outturn for 1988–89 is likely to be £506 million, so there has not been a reduction. In cash terms, that is a small increase. We are still spending proportionately double the amount that we spend in the remainder of the United Kingdom, so we shall continue to be able to reduce the levels of unfitness and disrepair, which are worse in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked me about the road to Larne. If we spend more money on roads, there will be less money to spend on housing or other sectors. We shall look at that road, right the way down to the border. We have been having discussions for some time with the Government of the Republic to try to get that route upgraded, but it is a question of finance. I should like to see stages 2 and 3 of the Newry bypass built, and the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) has pressed me about it and no doubt will continue to do so. However, it is more important to get the housing conditions in Northern Ireland right before we concentrate on roads.
The hon. Member for Leicester, South asked me why there had been no inquiry about the Northern health board's proposals. We looked carefully at the case that it has put, at the consultative procedures and at the alternatives that it was suggesting to its proposed closures, and we decided that its policy should be supported as it was in line with its structure plan. As to the small hospitals in its area and other areas, we shall look at the proposals that come to us, but it is our policy to have major acute hospitals of real quality and we find it hard to staff the much smaller acute hospitals. It is difficult to get staff to go to them.
I cannot think where the hon. Gentlemen got hold of the idea that there was a suggestion that the Royal Victoria hospital might close. Some of those who circulate such rumours are quite capable of creating them. There is no question of there being any danger to the Royal Victoria hospital. In fact, we are spending large and increased capital sums on it. It is one of the finest hospitals, if not the finest, in the country. I support the tremendous work that is does. In the total terms of public expenditure—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business).

Question agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith. pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), as amended by the order this day, That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on motions 4 to 11.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

AGRICULTURE

That the draft Agriculture Improvement (Amendment) Regulations 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.

That the Agriculture Improvement (Variation) Scheme 1988, (S.I., 1988, No. 1056), dated 16th June 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th June, be approved.

RATING AND VALUATION

That the draft British Waterways Board (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

That the draft Docks and Harbours (Rateable Values) (Scotland) Amendment Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

URBAN DEVELOPMENT

That the Wolverhampton Urban Development Area Order 1988, dated 24th March 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.

That the Sheffield Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988, dated 10th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

That the Leeds Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988, dated 10th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

That the Central Manchester Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 1988, dated 10th May 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — United States Domestic Waste (Dumping)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Chris Butler: I have had an opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment and I understand that he is not averse to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) contributing briefly to the debate if he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after my contribution.
It is my duty tonight to report a sense of utter outrage that is felt in the north-west at the proposal of the Manchester Ship Canal Company to import 7·5 million tonnes of supposed American domestic waste into my constituency. The resultant mountain of muck will dominate the flat Cheshire landscape. It will rise to 130 ft and cover 390 acres. Thousands of representations are pouring into me. I cannot over-emphasise the sense of bitterness and amazement among my constituents and among others in the north-west that the proposal should even be contemplated.
I have experienced this urgency of public opinion only once before, and that was when I was working in No. 10 during the Falklands crisis. On the Beaufort scale of political force, I reckon that if unassuaged these winds could destroy careers, even those of Ministers.
For the past 18 months there have been barges trawling around the Caribbean filled with sewage, one from New York and one from Philadelphia. They have been trying vainly to find a home. The Manchester Ship Canal Company is suggesting that the poor and under-developed nations of the Caribbean should reject the barges and that it will accept and welcome them for profit. This will be a national issue and the British people will reject the proposition and its defenders.
In 1986, Cheshire county council, against bitter opposition from my predecessor and the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), gave planning permission to the Manchester Ship Canal Company to place a tip on Arpley meadows. It was meant to be a strategic long-term facility to take Cheshire's waste for the next 25 years. The council was not disinterested because it agreed to share the profits of the deal. Critically, it entered into a local agreement to encourage the import of waste from outside Cheshire.
The Manchester Ship Canal Company has interpreted the agreement widely and has entered into a preliminary deal with Tower Water and Waste Ltd. to import 1·5 million tonnes of American domestic waste for five years. A company search of Power Water and Waste Ltd. shows that it has the princely sum of paid-up capital of £2. It has filed no accounts since the company was formed on 23 September 1986. The company will import—I say this so that my hon. Friend the Minister will understand the nature of the beast with which we are dealing—the muck into Liverpool and then ship it every day in 300 22-tonne lorries into the heart of my constituency, through the over-stretched road system around Warrington.
Why should Ministers be involved? First, it is a question of national importance as to whether we ought to be shipping in large imports of foreign waste. I wonder what areas of the country will be the next to be blighted by a megatonnage of muck. This is the thin end of a

potentially enormous wedge. I wonder whether Cirencester, or even Tewkesbury, might be blighted by such imports.
Secondly, although one might think that the waste disposal authority itself would be the prime mover in stopping such imports, it may not be able to do so because it is over a legal barrel, due to the foolish agreement into which it entered, to encourage imports of outside waste.
The Royal Commission on environmental pollution, in its eleventh report, concluded that landfill capacity in the United Kingdom is a scarce resource that needs to be conserved. However, these proposals will reduce the life of the tip at Arpley meadows by 15 years. Cheshire, already hard pressed to find landfill sites, will discover that its entire strategic waste disposal policy is jeopardised. Worse, the Manchester Ship Canal Company plans to find another landfill site in Cheshire at the end of the five-year period with a view to importing even more American domestic waste.
I am told by the man in the street—and he is right—that the American continent is a vast land mass and that ours is a small country hard pressed by environmental problems. Why cannot the American nation find a place in its vast land mass—perhaps in its deserts—to dispose of its waste and not add to our problems? It is paradoxical that the Government are spending £4 billion on clearing the Mersey basin but at the same time we appear to be allowing a towering beacon of noxiousness right on the Mersey's banks.
The royal commission suggested that the costs of preventing pollution should fall on the producers. I should like my hon. Friend to say whether the Government accept that recommendation, and, if so, how it could be enforced on the municipalities of New York, Philadelphia and Boston. The royal commission commented:
The greater the degree of separation between the final disposal of waste and the original process which gave rise to it, the more likely it is that the incidence of costs will be distorted.
My fear is that Warrington will end up paying the bills of New York.
The royal commission commented that there is often uncertainty surrounding the composition of a waste. That must be especially so with a megatonnage of waste from the United States. I find it hard to believe that there will be a man with a pan sorting through 7·5 million tonnes of waste before it comes over here or when it arrives. The suggestion that there is one global environment and that US waste is exactly the same as United Kingdom waste is laughable. The United States has a different climate, different insects, different diseases and different rubbish—and different ways of dealing with that rubbish and those diseases.
I ask hon. Members to pay heed to the words of Mrs. Linda Haslock, who lives 35 miles south of New York. She writes:
Non biodegradable plastic waste amounts to 112·8 tons of garbage each day for New York alone—never mind Boston and Philadelphia. It would pay, for once, to have a political jamboree for all those Cheshire officials to come out to Staten Island and spend a day or so surveying the current New York dump at Arthurs Kill and Fresh Kill. The mess is indescribable and the stench detectable up to 5 miles away when the wind is in the wrong direction. Park that lot in Warrington and you have the equivalent of a National Disaster area for years. To say nothing of the inevitable unkillable New York variety of cockroaches which will come with it all and proceed to infest the whole country at a phenomenal rate. Incidentally, the Staten Island Dump is


largely responsible for the pollution of the New Jersey Coast. Three days ago a large consignment of used and filthy 'crack' phials and hypodermic needles washed up on the beach … drug dealers' junk.
There are real environmental risks in the proposals. Who would pick up the bill if the Colorado beetle infested the Cheshire potato crop and destroyed it? Last year we suffered swine fever in this country as a result of imported meat products. There is a danger that small rabid animals would be imported and would infect the native livestock. Who would be responsible if thousands of domestic animals had to be slaughtered within a given radius?
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food knows what horrors are contained in the proposals. It has been in correspondence with Humberside about the proposals by a shipping agent to bring in 15,000 tonnes from Holland. The ENDS report of May 1988 stated:
According to MAFF's veterinary branch, any foreign household waste is likely to contain animal products and as such would be subject to licensing under the Importation of Animal Products and Poultry Products Order 1980. `No such licence would be given due to the animal health risks involved', MAFF says. 'Animal viruses are likely to persist in imported refuse, and could be taken up by seagulls, rats and other animals from British landfills', added a MAFF spokesman.
Even Chris Bonnington now faces a £400 fine for bringing in the supposed skull of an abominable snowman. MAFF even mounted a raid to seize the skin of a wild blue sheep that he had brought in. I urge my hon. Friend to dispense with this strange reticence about the 7·5 million tonnes that it is proposed to bring into the country, and to end this sorry saga now.
I realise that money is involved in the deal, but it is dirty money. The British people will be looking for more than the scalp of a yeti if the United Kingdom becomes the dustbin of the world but for paying dollars at the turnstile.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I thank the hon. Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler) for allowing me to speak. As he knows, we not only have great sympathy with Warrington but are concerned about the potential for our waterways to inflict a similar scheme on us in Cornwall.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly made clear, waste is now becoming an international problem, with a phenomenal 183,000 tonnes imported to Britain in 1986–87, compared to only 5,000 in the early 1980s. The short-term answer to that international problem has been to pay Third-world countries and the poorer communities—including our own—to accept toxic waste that should be, indeed is, refused by all who are able to do so. While Warrington and Cornwall cannot be compared to Third-world countries, we are told that we should accept waste-dumping schemes because they will improve the job situation in two areas that continue to suffer terrible unemployment, and therefore, in effect, are believed to have their backs against the wall.
When the CEGB threatened to build a nuclear power station in Cornwall, I was among many thousands who protested. We argued that what was not safe for Plymouth or London was not safe for Cornwall either. Exactly the same is true with this proposal. What is not welcome in New York or Washington is certainly not welcome in Cornwall or Warrington. The Minister must respond to our opposition in Cornwall to the dumping of American domestic waste because of fears of toxicity and the new fear of the spread of diseases to local livestock.
The third report of the hazardous waste inspectorate has already expressed fears of transportation of diseases by seagulls and rats in those waste dumps. We all saw not so long ago the farce of New York's rubbish being transported to and fro on massive barges, not being accepted anywhere. The rubbish travelled up and down the east coast of America without takers. It had been claimed that the barges held only the domestic waste that is promised for this country, but it was found to contain toxic waste, and the Americans did not want it to be landed anywhere in the States.
Must we look forward in the not-too-distant future to barges travelling up and down the south coast of Cornwall with such toxic waste destined for some part of our country? The proposals will mean the importation of 2 million tonnes of waste a year through Falmouth harbour. That is equivalent to 10 per cent. of British domestic waste. The United States is phasing out landfill sites because it has had such bad experience of them.
The debate will not stop here tonight. Solutions will be found only through an inquiry to answer the fears of the hazardous waste inspectorate, the fears of the people of Warrington and the fears of the people of Cornwall. It is not enough for the applications to be turned down, because they will be back tomorrow, in Cornwall, in Warrington and in other parts of the country. The United States does not want the waste and it believes that it can offload it on to us. Neither in this country nor internationally has a solution been found to the growing problem of waste disposal.
Government commitment to a full public inquiry generating genuine public trust and support for real, long-term solutions will provide the answer, Meanwhile, the proposals for Warrington and Cornwall most certainly should not go ahead.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): First, I should like to address the general background to policy in regard to the handling of waste before moving on to the specific and important issues raised by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Butler).
I thank my hon. Friend for the opportunity to discuss the proposed import of waste from America and the wider issues of waste imports in general. I should like to put the debate in context.
As a general principle, it is right that waste should be disposed of as close to its point of origin as practicable to maximise the effectiveness of controls over its movement and disposal. However, it has been widely accepted that the trade in waste is legitimate and indeed beneficial where the waste is to be disposed of more safely than in its country of origin and where the import does not endanger the availability of disposal facilities for United Kingdom waste. We are all more aware of the international dimension of pollution and it is in the interests of international environmental protection that, where appropriate, wastes should travel to facilities which can deal with them to a higher environmental standard.
This general proposition has long been the Government's policy and was endorsed by the Lords Committee on Science and Technology as long ago as 1981


and again by the Royal Commission on environmental pollution in its 11th report, "Managing Waste, The Duty of Care", in 1985.
The import of waste has increased since these two eminent bodies reported. However, it must be seen in perspective. Trade in waste is much more widespread elsewhere. The OECD estimated that in 1983 2·2 million tonnes of wastes crossed the borders of the European Community, but in that year only 15,000 tonnes came to the United Kingdom. Reports suggest that trade in waste has risen both in the European Community and throughout the world.
The United Kingdom has taken a share of this growth but from a very low base level. We still, it seems, import rather less than many of our European neighbours and certainly less than might be expected in view of our size and trading record. It is still a very small proportion of the amount of waste we dispose of annually in the United Kingdom. Imports of special waste amounted to 3·5 per cent. of total special waste disposed of in 1986 and the non-special waste was about 0·3 per cent. of industrial waste arising in England and Wales.
Imports of special waste—that is, wastes which are dangerous or difficult to dispose of—have increased from 4,000 tonnes in 1981 to 52,000 tonnes in 1986. Those special wastes all go to the specialist facilities I mentioned earlier, providing feedstock for them which allows them to remain in business to provide this essential service for our own waste arisings. As long as the waste is disposed of safely here, the United Kingdom can be proud of its record in the international waste disposal scene and protection of the wider international environment. This trade in special waste meets the criteria set out by both the Science and Technology Committee and the RCEP and is a legitimate trade.
It is, of course, less easy to see any reasons for importing waste for direct landfill, since all countries landfill waste and therefore have the facilities to dispose of that waste themselves. In 1986, there were imports of around 130,000 tonnes of non-special waste for direct landfill. It was mainly contaminated soil, fly-ash, gypsum and other industrial waste from the Netherlands, which has severe problems with landfill in some areas because of its geology and high water table. The United Kingdom, along with France, West Germany, Belgium and several other countries assisted their neighbour in the disposal of some of the waste. In those circumstances, even import for direct landfill can be said to be in the best interests of the wider environment, provided of course that it is disposed of safely in the country which accepts it. I can confirm that this is the case in the United Kingdom.
Having set out the Government's general view of waste imports, I shall now consider the matter of particular concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South and the hon. Member for Truro.
The proposal to ship 1·5 million to 2 million tonnes of domestic waste per annum from the eastern seaboard of the United States of America for disposal in this country is undoubtedly different in kind and in scale from the imports we have received so far. Safe disposal of waste, which is a prerequisite for all disposal of United Kingdom and foreign waste, must depend on full knowledge of the contents of the waste. Paradoxically, it is often easier to

guarantee the contents of chemical wastes—acids do not have a different chemical make-up if they are Belgian as opposed to being British—but household refuse is quite a different matter.
In England and Wales, we have recently laid regulations which specify that certain items of household waste may not be put in a dustbin but should be kept separate to ensure their safe disposal. This applies particularly to clinical waste arising in the home. We have, as yet, no indication that such segregation applies to household waste collection in, for instance the United States of America.
There are differences, too, in the nature of the articles which may be found in household waste from other countries. The United Kingdom is fortunate in being free of many pests and diseases, particularly those affecting animals and plants, which are common in some other countries.
Household waste will contain a large proportion of food and garden waste, which must involve the risk of pests and diseases being carried with it. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food restricts the import of any animal products and poultry, of animal pathogens and of listed plants, plant pests, plant products or soils. Such import is normally prohibited unless the relevant authorities in the exporting country can certify that it is free of disease. These regulations would apply equally to waste animal products or plants. It is difficult to see how the United States authorities could certify free from disease the contents of the many hundreds of thousands of dustbins.
Finally, there are differences in scale between the trade in special waste at 52,000 tonnes per annum and household waste at 1·5 to 2 million tonnes per annum. While imports of special waste and the relatively small amount of non-special waste can be accommodated without diverting disposal resources away from United Kingdom needs, the import of up to 2 million tonnes of waste, even if it did not raise questions of public health and safety, would be a significant increase in the amount of waste to be disposed of in this country.
This proposal comes at a time when we are re-assessing the availability of void space for waste disposal and other valuable land uses such as recreation and nature reserves. We are also reconsidering current landfill practices in view of the increased number of incidents involving landfill gas. A reappraisal of the geological conditions necessary for safe landfill of putrescible wastes may well reduce the availability of void space in the future.
For all these reasons, the proposed import of household waste from the United States of America gives grave cause for concern. It is difficult to envisage how the waste can be guaranteed free from disease or pests and, even if it were, I believe that the United Kingdom would have considerable difficulty in accommodating the proposed volumes at a time of increasing uncertainty about the future use of certain types of geology for landfill.
My hon. Friend has argued that matters of this kind should not be left to local authorities. There may be a case to argue on that point, but the fact is that under existing legislation, waste disposal control and regulation rests clearly and firmly on waste disposal authorities. They, not central Government, have the powers and the duty to ensure not only that waste is disposed of safely in their areas but that facilities are available in the longer term. Thus, for the particular proposals concerning Cheshire,


the county council, as waste disposal authority, is both operator of the site and regulation authority for the county, responsible for the planning of waste management in its area.
It seems quite clear that the proposal to increase the amount of household waste for disposal in the county by 300 to 400 per cent. would require a radical reappraisal of the operation of the site in question and the long-term waste planning of the area. It is for Cheshire, in the first instance, to consider the impact of the proposals on the site and on the plans, as it would be for any waste disposal authority considering any proposals which would radically alter its plans for individual sites or the area as a whole.
However, as my hon. Friend is aware, I am meeting a deputation from the council tomorrow to discuss the position and ascertain what conclusions it has reached. I believe that it will be an important and decisive meeting, not least in providing me with a comprehensive update on its position and to gain replies to a number of the additional specific points which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have brought to my attention. It is an opportunity to hear direct from the council about the position that it has now reached with regard to the possibility of imports of that size.
For Cornwall, which I understand is a possible alternative destination, a new site has been proposed which will require planning permission and, again, Cornwall county council as planning authority for waste disposal will consider any planning application that may be made in the normal way. Planning permissions and disposal licences or resolutions are normally granted subject to conditions which protect the use of the land and the amenity of the area for its residents. Proposals to alter the scale and nature of any operation would always have to satisfy the normal requirements for safeguarding the environment and the residents' health and amenity. The Government are therefore well apprised of the implications of the proposal, not only for Cheshire and Cornwall but for the country as a whole.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food maintains a constant vigilance against the risk of diseases coming into the country in products of animal and vegetable origin. Any would-be importers of any material would have to satisfy him that there were no dangers of carrying pests and diseases with that material. On that specific point, I have requested that officials from the

Ministry are present tomorrow so that we can further discuss this specific and important point of concern. I also believe that in national terms the scale of the proposal raises serious questions on the availability of disposal facilities, not least in Cornwall and in Cheshire, on which it may be necessary to seek further powers.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I thank the Minister for what he has said. In view of his last comment and his earlier comments on the national seriousness of the issue, may I ask whether he feels that such applications would be likely to be called in by the Department of the Environment for inquiry?

Mr. Moynihan: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not in a position to judge in general in regard to call-in. There is certainly no reason why applications of that type would not be considered for call-in. The hon. Gentleman will be the first to recognise—the House will understand this—that I cannot comment on a specific case in advance of all the details being brought to the attention of the responsible authorities.
Finally, in the last minute, I would also like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the announcement today of the Government's decisions on proposed legislative changes on waste management. These proposals will strengthen and extend the powers of waste disposal authorities and extend responsibility for safe management of waste to producers and carriers. A further short consultation paper on amendments to the Control of Pollution Act 1974 will be issued shortly, dealing with matters arising from the consultation process or from events after the process was begun in 1986. Legislation will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.
All these issues, and all the points to which I have responded, underscore the seriousness with which the Government view the issue. It is a matter of pressing arid considerable importance as well as being of public interest. For that reason, not only will I be having a meeting tomorrow but I will be following up all the points that have been made this evening as a matter of priority so that we can ensure that the widespread public concern and strength of opinion that has been expressed from both sides of the House this evening are properly taken into account.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Two o'clock.